2015 (2) TMI 378 - HC - Customs

Import of second hand digital multifunction print and copying machines as per the Bills of Entry - Non clearance of goods - Respondent treat the goods as in the nature of E-waste and thus qualify as hazardous waste - Held that - most appropriate course would be to direct respondent no.3 to determine as to whether or not the goods in issue i.e., the aforementioned machines are hazardous waste, as per the 2008 Rules. In arriving at its conclusion, respondent no.3 will take into account the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Shrishti Digital Solution 2013 (6) TMI 273 - MADRAS HIGH COURT as also the following judgment of the City Office Equipments Vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Import) 2014 (11) TMI 325 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . - writ petition and the pending application are disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported copier machines as hazardous waste.
2. Requirement of permission from Ministry of Environment and Forest for clearance.
3. Interpretation of Foreign Trade Policy regarding import restrictions.
4. Dispute over the application of a previous judgment from the Madras High Court.
5. Issuance of show cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962.

Classification of imported copier machines as hazardous waste:
The petitioner imported second-hand multifunctional copier machines and faced clearance issues due to the classification as E-waste by the respondents. The petitioner argued that a Chartered Engineer's Certificate confirmed the machines' residual value and non-E-waste status. The petitioner contended that the machines were not hazardous waste under the Hazardous Waste Rules and cited a Madras High Court judgment to support their claim. The court directed respondent no.3 to determine if the machines qualified as hazardous waste within two weeks, considering the mentioned judgments.

Requirement of permission from Ministry of Environment and Forest for clearance:
Respondent no.1 insisted on obtaining permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF) for clearing the copier machines, leading to a warehouse storage situation and additional expenses for the petitioner. The court directed respondent no.3 to assess if the imported machines were hazardous waste and instructed the petitioner to participate in the approval process if required.

Interpretation of Foreign Trade Policy regarding import restrictions:
The respondents argued that the import of the machines was restricted under an amended policy, requiring authorization from the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) based on MOEF certification. The court acknowledged the pending approval application with respondent no.3 and emphasized the need for proper classification of the machines under the current policy framework.

Dispute over the application of a previous judgment from the Madras High Court:
The petitioner relied on a Madras High Court judgment to support their claim that the imported copier machines were not hazardous waste. The respondents contested the applicability of the judgment due to policy amendments. The court directed respondent no.3 to consider the previous judgment along with another related judgment and make a determination regarding the hazardous waste classification.

Issuance of show cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962:
A show cause notice was issued under the Customs Act, 1962, and the petitioner responded accordingly. The court noted the ongoing adjudication proceedings and disposed of the writ petition with directions for respondent no.3 to evaluate the hazardous waste status of the imported copier machines promptly.