2001 (12) TMI 78 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with ex-parte injunction order for release of goods.
2. Testing of goods for hazardous nature by separate agencies.
3. Interpretation of reports from testing agencies.
4. Compliance with Supreme Court order regarding hazardous waste.
5. Classification of goods as hazardous waste under Hazardous Waste Rules.

Comprehensive Analysis:

Issue 1:
The judgment revolves around the compliance with an ex-parte injunction order dated 31-8-2000, directing the release of goods covered by a specific bill after depositing customs duty and without demurrage charges. Additionally, defendants were directed to pay demurrage charges and were restrained from auctioning the consignment.

Issue 2:
To determine the hazardous nature of the goods, separate laboratory tests were conducted by three agencies - Central Revenue Control Laboratory, AES Testing & Research Laboratory, and Indian Institute of Technology. The reports indicated that the products did not meet standard specifications and contained contaminers, suggesting they were off specification products.

Issue 3:
The reports from the testing agencies highlighted various aspects of the goods. While AES Testing & Research Laboratories found contaminates within acceptable limits, Central Revenue Control Laboratory concluded that the samples did not meet standard requirements for fuel oil. Indian Institute of Technology reported high levels of polyaromatic hydrocarbon and physical characteristics indicating potential use as coolant.

Issue 4:
Defendants cited a Supreme Court order related to hazardous waste management, which directed authorities not to release or auction hazardous waste until further orders. The judgment emphasized that the defendants were not obligated to release goods deemed hazardous under the Supreme Court order.

Issue 5:
The interpretation of the Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 was crucial in determining the classification of the goods. The rules categorized waste oil and off-specification products as hazardous waste, aligning with the defendants' treatment of the goods as hazardous waste due to being off specification and waste oil.

In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the application, highlighting that the defendants did not intentionally disobey the court orders and that the goods, classified as hazardous waste under relevant rules, should not be allowed in the market. The judgment emphasized the importance of expert data in determining hazardous nature and upheld the defendants' actions in withholding the release of goods deemed hazardous.