2022 (11) TMI 112 - HC - Customs

Direction to Re-export hazardous waste contained in 13 containers to the respective countries of export at their own cost, immediately - HELD THAT - The third respondent, All Cargo Logistic Ltd., the Container Freight Station, has filed a compilation dated 17.10.2022 with photographs to show that the wastes are now out of the container and lying in the CFS which constitutes a hazard to the environment in general. It is unfortunate that this matter has been hanging fire since 2018 in spite of the impugned order which, has been correctly passed directing re-export of the goods. As pointed out by learned Standing Counsel for the Customs, the impugned order has rightly been passed upon the liner/carrier, who had been engaged by the exporter. The impugned order is thus confirmed directing reexport to be carried out within a period of three weeks from today. The petitioner is always at liberty to have the costs reimbursed by the exporter/importer, and may take necessary steps in this regard, in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order directing re-export of hazardous waste contained in containers.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras dealt with a writ petition challenging an order from the Deputy Commissioner of Customs directing the carrier to re-export hazardous waste in 13 containers at their own cost. The petition had been pending since 2018, and the court had impleaded the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) to ascertain the nature of the goods. The TNPCB was directed to inspect the goods within a week and submit a report for further proceedings.

Subsequently, the TNPCB conducted an inspection to confirm the nature of the imported material. The TNPCB filed a report stating that the containers contained plastic waste, not just crushed pet bottles. The court ordered the unloading and physical verification of the containers to determine if they contained only recyclable materials or hazardous waste. The TNPCB was given four weeks to complete this exercise and provide a further report on whether the consignments had been recycled or if they constituted hazardous materials.

After a further report was filed by the TNPCB confirming the presence of plastic waste, the court upheld the impugned order directing re-export of the goods. The court emphasized that the responsibility for re-export fell on the carrier engaged by the exporter, who could seek reimbursement of costs from the exporter/importer. The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the order for re-export within three weeks and allowing the petitioner to recover costs from the exporter/importer, as per the law.

In conclusion, the court's decision upheld the order for re-export of hazardous waste, emphasizing the responsibility of the carrier and the need for proper disposal of the materials. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with environmental regulations and ensuring accountability for the proper handling of hazardous waste.