Imported Used Tires Classified as Hazardous Waste Under Hazardous Waste Rules, 2008

The court classified imported used tires as hazardous waste under the Hazardous Waste Rules, 2008 due to their condition. It emphasized the need for specific licenses for importing such tires and directed the importers to re-export the goods to their countries of origin. The court also instructed customs authorities to consider refund requests for fees and charges paid by importers. The writ appeals by Customs were allowed, and pending writ petitions were dismissed. No costs were awarded, and related miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported used tyres as hazardous waste.
2. Validity of the adjudication process and subsequent orders.
3. Compliance with Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008.
4. Release of imported goods and waiver of demurrage, rent, and detention charges.
5. Refund of fees and charges paid by importers.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Used Tyres as Hazardous Waste:
The customs officials argued that the imported used tyres were hazardous waste under the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence received intelligence indicating that these tyres were being supplied to reprocessing units after being cut into pieces. The initial inspection by M/s. SGS India Private Limited found the tyres to be used but not reconditioned or retreaded. However, a subsequent inspection by Griffith India Private Limited revealed that a significant portion of the tyres were part-worn, re-treaded, or end-of-life tyres, making them hazardous waste. The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board's report confirmed that the tyres could only be used after retreading and would eventually contribute to hazardous waste.

2. Validity of the Adjudication Process and Subsequent Orders:
The respondents/importers contended that they had paid the necessary duties, fines, and penalties as determined by the Additional Commissioner of Customs and requested the release of the goods. However, the customs authorities argued that the adjudication process did not preclude further investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The court noted that the adjudication order had not been challenged by the Customs Department but found that the Department had taken steps to review the order, which they were empowered to do under the law.

3. Compliance with Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008:
The court emphasized that the import of used tyres required specific licenses under the Hazardous Waste Rules, 2008. The imported tyres, being over six years old, had a limited lifespan even after retreading and would soon become hazardous waste. The court referred to the United Nations Environmental Programme vis-`a-vis Basel Convention, which stipulates that the lifetime of an original tyre casing must not exceed seven years. The court concluded that the imported tyres fell under the category of hazardous waste and their import could not be allowed without proper licenses.

4. Release of Imported Goods and Waiver of Demurrage, Rent, and Detention Charges:
The learned single Judge had directed the release of the goods subject to further proceedings and consideration of waiver of demurrage, rent, and detention charges. However, the appellate court found that the release of the goods would result in the dumping of hazardous waste in India, contrary to the laws in force. The court, therefore, directed the respondents/importers to send back the imports to the countries of origin at their own cost and expenditure.

5. Refund of Fees and Charges Paid by Importers:
The court acknowledged that the respondents/importers had paid certain fees and charges while claiming the goods. It directed the customs authorities to consider the requests for refund of any such fees or charges, provided the importers made a request within two weeks of the order. The customs authorities were instructed to pass speaking orders after following due process of law within four weeks of receiving such a request.

Conclusion:
The writ appeals filed by the Customs were allowed, and the respondents/importers were directed to re-export the used tyres to the countries of origin. The court also dismissed the pending writ petitions and directed the customs authorities to consider refund requests for fees and charges paid by the importers. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---