2010 (12) TMI 1244 - HC - Customs

Waste - The stand of the appellants is that under the rules known as Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2008 framed pursuant to the powers conferred on the Government of India under the various provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the goods imported by the respondent are suspected to be hazardous wastes falling under the Entry A-1180 of Part A and Entry B- 1110 of Part B of III Schedule appended to the above mentioned Rules.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2008 regarding imported goods suspected to be hazardous wastes.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2008 concerning imported goods suspected to be hazardous wastes. The writ petitioner imported old and used digital multi-functional printers, but the appellants, based on the Hazardous Wastes Rules, suspected the goods to be hazardous wastes falling under specific entries in the Schedule appended to the Rules. The Rules define hazardous waste as any waste with characteristics posing danger to health or the environment. The classification of electrical and electronic assemblies as hazardous waste depends on the presence of certain components with specified chemical elements as outlined in the Rules.

The key issue in the case was whether the imported goods constituted hazardous waste as per the Hazardous Wastes Rules. The Court highlighted that determining whether the waste electrical assemblies qualified as hazardous waste required a factual inquiry into the components present in the imported materials. Despite the bills of entry being presented in August, the appellants did not permit the respondent to clear the goods, leading to the filing of the Writ Petition seeking permission to clear the goods after paying the due customs duty.

The Court, considering the rights of both parties and the obligation to enforce environmental protection laws, directed the appellants to examine the imported materials and make a final decision within two weeks. If the goods were found not to be hazardous, they were to be released. However, if any part of the imported materials was deemed impermissible for home consumption, a detailed reasoning was required for such a decision. The judgment emphasized the importance of a thorough examination to determine the permissibility of clearing the imported goods and outlined a clear process for decision-making and subsequent action based on the examination results.

In conclusion, the judgment provided a balanced approach by ensuring a fair examination of the imported materials to determine their classification as hazardous waste under the Hazardous Wastes Rules. The Court's directions aimed to uphold both the rights of the respondent to clear the goods and the State's obligation to enforce environmental protection laws effectively.