2013 (2) TMI 638 - HC - Customs

Import of used tyres - hazardous waste - confiscation - held that - as per the United Nations Environmental Programme vis- -vis Basel Convention regarding Pneumatic tyres, the lifetime of an original tyre casing must not exceed seven years. All the imported used tyres in these cases are 6 years old and as per the reports available on record, these tyres cannot be made use of until and unless they are re-treaded and even after re-treading, they cannot be made use of for quite a long time. Therefore, naturally, these old tyres will shortly be a hazardous waste in our country. Writ appeals filed by the Customs are allowed. The respondents/importers are directed to send back the imports to the countries of origin at their own cost and expenditure immediately. The appellants are directed to take all steps necessary in this regard. Appellants to consider the requests of the respondents/importers for refund of any such fee or other charges they have paid for claiming the goods, as per rules, if any such request is made on behalf of the respondents/importers within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this order.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported used tyres as hazardous waste.
2. Validity of the adjudication process and subsequent orders.
3. Compliance with Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008.
4. Release of imported goods and waiver of demurrage, rent, and detention charges.
5. Refund of fees and charges paid by importers.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Used Tyres as Hazardous Waste:
The customs officials argued that the imported used tyres were hazardous waste under the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence received intelligence indicating that these tyres were being supplied to reprocessing units after being cut into pieces. The initial inspection by M/s. SGS India Private Limited found the tyres to be used but not reconditioned or retreaded. However, a subsequent inspection by Griffith India Private Limited revealed that a significant portion of the tyres were part-worn, re-treaded, or end-of-life tyres, making them hazardous waste. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board's report confirmed that the tyres could only be used after retreading and would eventually contribute to hazardous waste.

2. Validity of the Adjudication Process and Subsequent Orders:
The respondents/importers contended that they had paid the necessary duties, fines, and penalties as determined by the Additional Commissioner of Customs and requested the release of the goods. However, the customs authorities argued that the adjudication process did not preclude further investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The court noted that the adjudication order had not been challenged by the Customs Department but found that the Department had taken steps to review the order, which they were empowered to do under the law.

3. Compliance with Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008:
The court emphasized that the import of used tyres required specific licenses under the Hazardous Waste Rules, 2008. The imported tyres, being over six years old, had a limited lifespan even after retreading and would soon become hazardous waste. The court referred to the United Nations Environmental Programme vis-`a-vis Basel Convention, which stipulates that the lifetime of an original tyre casing must not exceed seven years. The court concluded that the imported tyres fell under the category of hazardous waste and their import could not be allowed without proper licenses.

4. Release of Imported Goods and Waiver of Demurrage, Rent, and Detention Charges:
The learned single Judge had directed the release of the goods subject to further proceedings and consideration of waiver of demurrage, rent, and detention charges. However, the appellate court found that the release of the goods would result in the dumping of hazardous waste in India, contrary to the laws in force. The court, therefore, directed the respondents/importers to send back the imports to the countries of origin at their own cost and expenditure.

5. Refund of Fees and Charges Paid by Importers:
The court acknowledged that the respondents/importers had paid certain fees and charges while claiming the goods. It directed the customs authorities to consider the requests for refund of any such fees or charges, provided the importers made a request within two weeks of the order. The customs authorities were instructed to pass speaking orders after following due process of law within four weeks of receiving such a request.

Conclusion:
The writ appeals filed by the Customs were allowed, and the respondents/importers were directed to re-export the used tyres to the countries of origin. The court also dismissed the pending writ petitions and directed the customs authorities to consider refund requests for fees and charges paid by the importers. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.