The Madras High Court dismissed a public interest petition seeking enforcement of DFIA value caps imposed by public notice, holding that a stranger cannot challenge Tribunal rulings the Union has not appealed.

A public interest litigation (PIL) cannot be used to force customs officers to enforce conditions of the Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) scheme whose legal force is in doubt, or to reopen rulings of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that the Revenue itself has not challenged, the Madras High Court has held [S. Santhosh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3433-HC(Madras)-Customs].

The Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, who wrote the order, and Justice G. Arul Murugan dismissed the petition of a 26-year-old Chennai resident.

DFIA is a post-export scheme under Chapter 4 of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) that lets holders import inputs duty free. By Public Notice No. 41 of 2 Nov 2016, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) added value caps and an actual user condition for certain food products. CESTAT benches at Mumbai and Kolkata had held that such conditions, imposed only by public notice, could not be used to deny the exemption. The petitioner also alleged that DFIA exporters were wrongly claiming benefits under the Remission of Duties and Taxes on Export Products (RoDTEP) scheme.

He sought directions to verify these conditions before clearance, an inquiry against officers, notices to importers, and declarations that CESTAT rulings do not bind the DGFT on policy and that the DGFT alone decides RoDTEP eligibility.

The Court found the petition fell short. The petitioner had learnt of the alleged misuse from internet reports, named no importer or bill of entry, stated no loss and made no representation to any authority. A writ of mandamus needs a clear legal duty, and the Court said it cannot direct officers to enforce a condition whose legal force is itself in serious doubt. If the Government thinks such conditions are needed, it can issue a proper notification; that is a matter of policy.

Recovery of duty, it said, needs a notice to a particular person on particular facts under the Customs Act, 1962, and a roving inquiry against unnamed persons cannot be ordered in a PIL. The CESTAT orders were judicial orders under Section 129A, the Revenue had a remedy of appeal, and the petitioner, a stranger, “cannot do what the Union of India does not chose to do”.

Rejecting the plea that CESTAT cannot interpret the FTP, the Court held that paragraph 2.58 of the FTP, which makes the DGFT’s interpretation final, is a policy provision and cannot take away a jurisdiction given by Parliament. The petition was dismissed.

2026-juristway.com-3433-HC(Madras)-Customs