Hazardous waste tyre imports require statutory permission, licensing controls and special customs testing before clearance.

Import of waste pneumatic tyres and tyre scrap listed in Schedule III of the Hazardous Wastes Rules remained subject to the Ministry's permission under Rules 14 and 16; relaxation of prior informed consent from the export country did not remove the domestic clearance requirement. Shredded tyres were treated as a restricted item requiring a DGFT licence, while one-cut used tyres were described as freely importable. Customs was not bound to use the general sampling procedure in the public notice, because hazardous waste imports could be checked through the special statutory testing process. The petition was dismissed and the regulatory scrutiny was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether import of waste pneumatic tyres and tyre scrap falling within Schedule III of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2008 could be effected without permission of the Ministry of Environment and Forests; (ii) whether shredded tyres required a licence from the Director General of Foreign Trade while one-cut used tyres were freely importable; (iii) whether the Customs authorities were bound to clear the consignments by following the general sampling procedure in the public notice dated 21 April 2009.

Issue (i): Whether import of waste pneumatic tyres and tyre scrap falling within Schedule III of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2008 could be effected without permission of the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

Analysis: The Rules define hazardous waste broadly and treat import of Schedule III waste as regulated import. Rule 14 relaxes only the requirement of prior informed consent from the country of export for Part B items, but does not dispense with the procedure under Rule 16. Rule 16 requires an importer of hazardous waste specified in Schedule III to apply to the Central Government, and the Ministry may grant permission subject to statutory conditions. The Court also noted that movement of such waste across national borders constitutes transboundary movement, bringing the import within the regulatory framework.

Conclusion: Permission of the Ministry of Environment and Forests was required, and the challenge to that requirement failed.

Issue (ii): Whether shredded tyres required a licence from the Director General of Foreign Trade while one-cut used tyres were freely importable.

Analysis: The respondents clarified on affidavit that used rubber tyres with one cut in bead wire were freely importable, whereas shredded tyres were a restricted item requiring a licence. The record showed that the petitioners had already obtained a licence for tyre scrap subject to its terms. In that background, no further direction was necessary on the licensing issue.

Conclusion: No relief was granted on the licensing issue, and the petitioners were not entitled to a direction dispensing with the licence for shredded tyres.

Issue (iii): Whether the Customs authorities were bound to clear the consignments by following the general sampling procedure in the public notice dated 21 April 2009.

Analysis: The public notice was only a facilitative procedure for routine sampling and testing. For hazardous waste imports, the authorities were entitled to follow the special procedure designed to verify compliance with the governing Rules, including collection of samples and testing through the approved laboratory to ensure absence of contamination and lawful import. The Court found no infirmity in that approach.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to insist upon the normal public-notice procedure for clearance of the consignments.

Final Conclusion: The regulatory requirements governing hazardous waste imports were upheld, the requested writ relief was declined, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Import of hazardous waste listed in Schedule III of the Rules is subject to the statutory permission and clearance mechanism under Rules 14 and 16, and the writ court will not displace that regulatory scrutiny in exercise of Article 226.

---