Hazardous waste classification for used computers requires competent authority proof; a non-binding report cannot justify confiscation.

Imported used computer systems and laptops cannot be treated as hazardous waste or e-waste for confiscation unless that character is established by a competent authority under the governing environmental framework. A Chartered Engineer's report, by itself, was insufficient where it was not issued by a notified or competent authority and did not show that the consignment was hazardous; the report indicated that most goods were reusable and only a small portion was non-functional. Confiscation on the basis of hazardous-waste classification was therefore unsustainable. The matter was remanded only for limited reconsideration of compliance with paragraph 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy and the consequential duty, fine, and penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported used computer systems and laptops could be treated as hazardous waste or e-waste so as to justify confiscation and whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication on violation of the Foreign Trade Policy.

Analysis: The goods were examined only on the basis of a Chartered Engineer's report, which was not a certification by any notified or competent authority under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 or the rules made thereunder. The report itself indicated that most of the consignment was reusable and only a small portion was non-functional, and it did not establish that the goods were hazardous waste. No report had been obtained from the State Pollution Control Board, a Central Government agency, a competent laboratory, or any other authorised testing agency. In the absence of a legally competent finding that the goods fell within the category of hazardous waste, the imported used computer systems could not be treated as prohibited waste merely on apprehension that refurbishing might generate e-waste. The goods were therefore not liable to be sustained as hazardous waste, though the issue of compliance with paragraph 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy still required consideration.

Conclusion: The confiscation based on treatment of the goods as hazardous waste was unsustainable. The appeals were allowed and the matters were remanded for limited re-adjudication on violation of paragraph 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy and determination of appropriate duty, fine, and penalty.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders could not be sustained on the hazardous-waste basis, and the dispute was sent back only for reconsideration of the import restriction and consequential fiscal liabilities.

Ratio Decidendi: A consignment cannot be treated as hazardous waste or e-waste for confiscation purposes unless that character is established by a competent authority under the governing environmental framework; a mere apprehension or non-binding technical report is insufficient.

---