Court upholds safety regulations for cargo handling at Container Freight Stations & Inland Container Depots

The Court upheld the constitutionality of Circular 4/2011, Public Notice 8/2011, and the checklist issued, including the prescription of a minimum distance between general cargo and hazardous cargo at Container Freight Stations (CFS) and Inland Container Depots (ICD). The Court found that the prescription of the minimum distance was not arbitrary or ultra vires, emphasizing the importance of safety and security in Customs areas. The matter was referred to competent authorities for further examination, highlighting the need for collaboration and expert input in decision-making. The Petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Circular 4/2011, Public Notice 8/2011, and the checklist issued on 3 March 2011 (as modified on 6 April 2011).
2. Prescription of a minimum distance between general cargo and hazardous cargo at Container Freight Stations (CFS) and Inland Container Depots (ICD).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Circular 4/2011, Public Notice 8/2011, and the Checklist:
The Petitioner, an association representing eleven Container Freight Stations, challenges Circular 4/2011, Public Notice 8/2011, and a checklist issued on 3 March 2011, as modified by a letter dated 6 April 2011. They argue that these are unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Dangerous Goods (Arrival, Receipt, Transport, Handling, and Storage) in Jawaharlal Nehru Port Regulations, 2007. The core issue is the prescription of a distance to be maintained between general cargo and hazardous cargo at CFSs or ICDs.

2. Prescription of Minimum Distance:
- Statutory Framework: Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962, mandates that all imported goods unloaded in a Customs area remain in the custody of an approved person until cleared. Section 141(2) allows for the receipt, storage, delivery, dispatch, or handling of goods in a Customs area as prescribed. The Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, framed under these sections, require applicants to maintain infrastructural and other facilities to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Customs. Regulation 5(1)(n) and Regulation 6(q) emphasize the need for safe, secure, and spacious premises for cargo handling.

- Government and Parliamentary Committee Involvement: The Government of India set up an Inter Ministerial Standing Committee to consider proposals for setting up ICDs and CFSs. The Central Board of Excise and Customs issued a Circular on 10 January 2011, following recommendations from the Parliamentary Committee on Subordinate Legislation. The circular emphasized the importance of safety and security, prohibiting relaxation or exemption from safety requirements. Guideline 1 stipulated that hazardous goods should be stored in isolated areas, and Guideline 5 specified that hazardous cargo should be situated at a minimum distance of 200 meters from main office buildings.

- Public Notice and Checklist: Public Notice 8/2011, issued on 4 February 2011, required CCSPs to apply to the Commissioner of Customs to handle hazardous cargo. A communication on 3 March 2011, along with a checklist, mandated a minimum distance of 100 meters between hazardous and general cargo. This was later revised to 200 meters on 11 April 2011.

- Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner contends that there is no scientific basis for the prescribed minimum distance and that the 2007 Regulations for Jawaharlal Nehru Port should apply. They argue that the Central Board of Excise and Customs only required a 200-meter distance between hazardous cargo and office buildings, not between hazardous and general cargo.

- Respondent's Arguments: The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, in an affidavit, argued that the prescription of a safe distance is intra vires the 2009 Regulations and necessary for safety and security. They emphasized that CFSs and ICDs require stringent guidelines due to longer storage durations compared to port areas.

- Court's Analysis: The Court noted that the statutory framework under the Customs Act, 1962, empowers the Commissioner of Customs to ensure safety and security in Customs areas. The 2009 Regulations require compliance with safety standards. The Court found that the prescription of a distance between hazardous and general cargo is not arbitrary or ultra vires. The Court emphasized deference to the expertise of the Commissioner of Customs in such matters.

- Re-examination by Competent Authorities: The Central Board of Excise and Customs referred the matter to the Union Ministries of Environment and Forests and Shipping for further examination. The Court expected a collaborative exercise to arrive at a decision based on expert views and safety needs.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the prescription of a minimum distance between hazardous and general cargo is not arbitrary or ultra vires. The issue requires continuous monitoring and evaluation, and the competent authorities should undertake a collaborative exercise to arrive at a considered decision. The Petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

---