2014 (1) TMI 1740 - HC - Customs

Seeking direction for sending samples to another laboratory than Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) - CRCL has no infrastructure as well as competence to undertake the testing whether the sample is hazardous or toxic - Respondent contended that CRCL is a competent laboratory and have tested the sample and found that the goods imported within the periphery of hazardous waste but as per petitioner s annexed certificate issued by the laboratory situated at the consignor s country, the said goods are not hazardous or toxic. Held that - since two conflict reports have come up, this Court feels that the respondent authorities should take out another sample and shall send the same to a third laboratory or to any other laboratory set up by the Central Government under Section 12 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 having infrastructure to undertake the testing of the material whether the same is hazardous or toxic. Therefore, the respondent authorities are directed to collect a sample from the consignment in presence of the petitioner or its authorized representative within a week from date and shall send them to the laboratory as indicated hereinabove and shall intimate the petitioner the cost incurred for such test, which shall be reimbursed by the petitioner. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over the competence of Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) for testing hazardous waste samples.
2. Conflict between the laboratory certificate from the consignor's country and the testing results from CRCL.
3. Resolution of the conflict by sending a sample to a third laboratory for testing under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

Analysis:
The writ petition revolves around the contention that the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) lacks the necessary infrastructure and competence to test whether a sample is hazardous or toxic. The petitioner requested the sample to be sent to another laboratory, citing the discrepancy with a certificate from the consignor's country that deemed the goods non-hazardous. In response, the respondent authorities defended CRCL's competency, stating that it had tested the sample and classified the imported goods as hazardous waste.

Given the conflicting reports, the Court intervened by directing the authorities to collect a new sample from the consignment in the presence of the petitioner or its representative. This sample was to be sent to a third laboratory or any other laboratory established by the Central Government under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, capable of determining the hazardous nature of the material. The petitioner was to reimburse the testing costs within three days of notification, and the authorities were instructed to obtain the laboratory certificate within four weeks from dispatch.

Ultimately, the Court disposed of the writ petition, emphasizing the need for an impartial assessment of the sample's hazardous nature by an appropriate laboratory. No costs were awarded in the judgment, signaling a resolution solely focused on the testing process and conflict resolution between the involved parties.