Hazardous-waste liability continues despite customs withdrawal, while containers may be moved to bonded warehouse for final examination.

Liability under the hazardous-waste regime was held to continue despite withdrawal of customs bills of entry and an attempted re-export, because Rule 15(3) fastens responsibility on the occupier, exporter and importer to ensure safe storage and environmentally sound disposal of illegal transboundary hazardous waste. The court treated customs proceedings and hazardous-waste obligations as operating in different fields, so the customs label did not extinguish statutory environmental responsibility. It also permitted the containers to be shifted to a customs bonded warehouse, noting that final examination of the cargo was still required and that adequate safeguards could preserve regulatory control while reducing hardship to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second respondent continued to bear a statutory obligation under Rule 15(3) of the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 to dispose of the cargo, notwithstanding withdrawal of the bills of entry and the attempted re-export; (ii) Whether the petitioner should be permitted to shift the containers to a customs bonded warehouse and secure a final examination of the cargo.

Issue (i): Whether the second respondent continued to bear a statutory obligation under Rule 15(3) of the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 to dispose of the cargo, notwithstanding withdrawal of the bills of entry and the attempted re-export.

Analysis: The cargo formed part of a large import made by the second respondent from its regular overseas supplier, and the second respondent had itself filed bills of entry in respect of the consignment. Withdrawal of the bills of entry and the subsequent re-export attempt did not erase the earlier role of the second respondent in relation to the cargo. The Customs Act and the Hazardous Wastes Rules operate in different fields, and the absence of an obligation under the Customs Act does not extinguish the obligation imposed by the hazardous-waste regime. Rule 15(3) fastens responsibility on the occupier, exporter and importer to ensure safe storage and environmentally sound shipment or disposal of illegal transboundary hazardous waste. The Court also held that the importer-label used in customs proceedings and the statutory responsibility under the hazardous-waste rules are not mutually destructive.

Conclusion: The second respondent remained statutorily bound under Rule 15(3) to dispose of the cargo if it was hazardous, and could not evade that obligation by withdrawing the bills of entry or by the attempted re-export.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner should be permitted to shift the containers to a customs bonded warehouse and secure a final examination of the cargo.

Analysis: The inspection report of the Central Pollution Control Board showed mixed waste with plastic, jute, glass, metal and household waste, but also indicated that a final determination of the exact composition and nature of the cargo was still required. The Board did not object to shifting the containers to a bonded warehouse, provided adequate safeguards were maintained. Since the petitioner was neither the importer nor the exporter and was suffering continuing storage burdens, the Court considered it to reduce prejudice to the petitioner while preserving the regulatory control needed for final determination and eventual disposal. The Court therefore balanced the need for environmental verification with the need to avoid unnecessary hardship to the petitioner.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to shift the containers to a customs bonded warehouse, and the cargo was to be subjected to final examination before any ultimate disposal or re-export decision.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded to the extent of enabling the petitioner to move the containers to a bonded warehouse, while the second respondent was left responsible for the hazardous-waste compliance and consequential disposal steps if the cargo was found hazardous.

Ratio Decidendi: Obligations imposed by a hazardous-waste regime are independent of customs withdrawal or re-export arrangements, and the statutory responsibility to safely store, ship, or dispose of illegal transboundary hazardous waste continues to rest on the importer, exporter, or occupier until lawful compliance is achieved.

---