Prospective trade restrictions and hazardous-waste classification cannot defeat clearance of earlier imported machinery.

Used digital multifunction print and copying machines were analysed against the hazardous-waste classification under the Hazardous Waste Rules and the foreign trade restriction regime. The text states that the machines were not shown to be mere electrical or electronic assemblies within Basel Entry B1110, so they did not fall within the hazardous-waste definition. It also explains that a notification issued on 5 June 2012 operated prospectively and, absent clear retrospective language, could not be used to deny clearance of imports made earlier. On that basis, the goods were treated as not subject to the later restriction for those imports.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported used Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines were liable to be treated as hazardous waste or as goods falling in the restricted category under the Foreign Trade Policy and the Hazardous Waste Rules, and whether the notification dated 5th June 2012 could be applied to deny release of goods imported earlier.

Analysis: The Court found that the imported machines were not shown, on the evidence, to be mere electrical or electronic assemblies within Basel Entry B1110 of Part B of Schedule III to the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008, and therefore did not fall within the definition of hazardous waste under Rule 3(1)(iii) of those Rules. It also held that the notification issued under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 came into force only from 5th June 2012 and, in the absence of any indication of retrospective operation, could not govern imports made before that date. On that footing, the subsequent restriction could not be used to defeat clearance of the goods already imported.

Conclusion: The imported goods were not liable to be treated as hazardous waste or as restricted goods for the purpose of the present imports, and the respondents could not rely on the later notification to withhold release.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were allowed, and directions were issued for release of the goods on payment of the appropriate customs duty and compliance with the prescribed conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: A later import policy notification operates prospectively unless the statute or notification clearly indicates retrospective effect, and goods not established to fall within the statutory hazardous-waste classification cannot be denied clearance on the basis of that later restriction.

---