##PAGE1##

WP No. 32716 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30-03-2026

CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ

WP No. 32716 of 2023 and WMP.No.32325 of 2023

M/s.American Ortho-Tech (P) Ltd., Represented By Its Director, Mr. Azam Syed,

No. A9, Phase Ii, MEPZ/SEZ, Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The SEZ Specified Officer, MEPZ/SEZ,

Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045.

2. The Additional Directorate General Of Foreign Trade, Shastribhavan, Annex Building,

Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600006.

..Respondent(s)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 03.10.2023 in S.MISC. 114/2023-24/MEPZ-SEZ/CUS issued by the 1st Respondent and quash the same and direct the 1st Respondent to amend the shipping bills mentioned in the petitioner’s representation dated 02.03.2022 from free shipping bills to MEIS shipping bills and consequently, direct the 2nd Respondent to sanction the benefits under the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS) in terms

Chapter 3 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 within a time bound manner.

__________ Page1 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2026 01:49:30 pm )

WP No. 32716 of 2023

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan For Respondent(s): Mr. Avinash Wadhwani,

Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy,

Senior Panel Counsel FOR R2

ORDER

The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated

03.10.2023, whereby petitioner’s request for amendment of the shipping bill

was rejected.

2. Petitioner, admittedly a SEZ Unit, claimed to have exported

orthopaedic shoes and inner soles, however, while filing the shipping bills, it had neither declared that it intended to claim the benefit under the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (hereinafter referred to MEIS Scheme) nor mentioned “YES” in rewards column. Importantly, the rewards column has a

default entry which reads “NO”.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the reasoning contained in the

impugned order while rejecting petitioner’s claim of benefits under the Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS) in terms of Chapter 3 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, viz., that petitioner’s failure to tick “YES” in the reward box, resulted in denying the respondent Authorities an opportunity to

__________ Page2 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2026 01:49:30 pm )

WP No. 32716 of 2023

physically verify the goods, is unsustainable. That this would be clear if one bears in mind that petitioner is a SEZ Unit, governed by Special Economic

Zones Act, 2005 as well as the Rules framed thereunder.

4. Importantly, learned counsel for petitioner would place reliance upon Rule 46 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 which reads as under:

“46. Procedure for Export. – (1) The procedure for export from Special Economic Zone through seaports or airports or Inland Container Depot or Container Freight Station or Land Customs Station or by Post or by Courier or by Personal Carriage, as the

case may be, shall be as under:-.

(a) the Unit shall file Shipping Bill, in quadruplicate, with the Authorized Officer of Customs in the Special Economic Zone together with relevant documents, namely, invoice, packing list

and Currency Declaration Form (GR) (in duplicate):”

........

(c) the goods shall not be subjected to routine examination and ‘Let Export Order’ shall be given on the basis of self

certification by the Unit:

Provided that goods may be sealed after examination, as per the norms prescribed for free shipping bills, at the option of the Unit,

by the Authorized Officer.

Provided further that if services are exported in non-physical form, the export values is to be furnished by the Unit on self certification basis as per the instructions of the Reserve Bank of

India.

__________ Page3 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/04/2026