Used pneumatic tyres for reuse are not hazardous waste, and an office memorandum cannot impose an import ban without statutory power.

Imported used pneumatic tyres fit for reuse were held not to fall within Entry B-3140 of Schedule III Part-B of the Hazardous Waste Rules because the entry covers waste tyres, not tyres capable of direct reuse. On that construction, the tyres were not subject to hazardous-waste controls or prior environmental permission on the stated basis. The office memorandum could not create a new prohibition on import or clearance in the absence of statutory authority under the governing Act or rules, and an administrative instruction could not justify refusal of assessment and clearance of the bills of entry. The goods were directed to be assessed and cleared in accordance with the Customs Act, subject to the stated safeguards.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether imported used pneumatic tyres fit for reuse fell within Entry B-3140 of Schedule III Part-B of the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 as hazardous waste requiring prior environmental permission; and (ii) whether the Ministry of Environment and Forests could, by office memorandum, prohibit import and clearance of such tyres absent statutory authority under the rules.

Issue (i): Whether imported used pneumatic tyres fit for reuse fell within Entry B-3140 of Schedule III Part-B of the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 as hazardous waste requiring prior environmental permission.

Analysis: Entry B-3140 covers waste pneumatic tyres, excluding those which do not lead to resource recovery, recycling, reclamation or direct reuse. The goods in question were found to be used pneumatic tyres in good condition and reusable. The classification scheme in Chapter 40 of the import tariff separately recognises used pneumatic tyres, while waste tyres fall in a different category. On that construction, tyres meant for reuse do not answer the description of waste pneumatic tyres and therefore do not attract the hazardous-waste controls relied upon by the respondents.

Conclusion: The imported tyres were not shown to fall within Entry B-3140 and were not liable to be treated as hazardous waste requiring prior permission on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the Ministry of Environment and Forests could, by office memorandum, prohibit import and clearance of such tyres absent statutory authority under the rules.

Analysis: Rule 23 and Schedule VII assign duties to authorities, but a duty is not the same as a power to create a new prohibition. In the absence of a provision in the Act or the rules authorising the Ministry to add a further category of prohibited imports, the office memorandum remained an administrative instruction only. A restriction on import not supported by the governing statute or rules could not be used to refuse assessment and clearance of the bills of entry.

Conclusion: The office memorandum lacked enforceable statutory force and could not justify refusal of assessment or clearance.

Final Conclusion: The application was allowed, and the respondents were directed to permit assessment and clearance of the goods in accordance with the Customs Act, 1962, subject to the stated safeguards.

Ratio Decidendi: A goods classification or import restriction cannot be founded on an administrative memorandum unless the restriction is traceable to statutory power, and used pneumatic tyres intended for reuse are not to be treated as waste pneumatic tyres merely because they are second-hand.

---