Hazardous waste classification for imported used tyres did not justify withholding provisional clearance on the facts stated.

Imported used tyres were examined under the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008, and were prima facie not shown to be waste or hazardous waste. The schedule entry was read as covering waste tyres meant for specified waste-management purposes, so treating directly reusable tyres as prohibited was considered untenable. The office memorandum relied on by the authorities was found insufficient to override the statutory scheme. On that basis, and because prolonged non-clearance and mounting demurrage showed irreparable injury, interim relief was granted directing survey, provisional assessment, and conditional clearance without insisting on MOEF or DGFT permission.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported used tyres could be treated as hazardous waste or prohibited goods so as to justify withholding clearance, and whether interim relief directing provisional assessment and clearance ought to be granted.

Analysis: The import was examined against the definitions of "waste" and "hazardous waste" in the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. On the material placed, the tyres were prima facie not shown to be waste or hazardous waste. The Court also read the relevant schedule entry as covering waste tyres meant for specified waste-management purposes and held that a construction treating directly reusable tyres as prohibited would be untenable. The office memorandum relied upon by the authorities was treated as insufficient by itself to override the statutory scheme. The Court further found a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury because the goods had remained uncleared for a prolonged period and demurrage was mounting.

Conclusion: Interim relief was granted in favour of the assessee, directing survey, provisional assessment, and clearance of directly reusable tyres without insisting on MOEF or DGFT permission, subject to conditions.

Final Conclusion: The Court accepted, only for interim purposes, that the imported goods were not shown to be hazardous waste and permitted conditional clearance pending further proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative instructions cannot be used to refuse clearance of imported goods unless they are supported by the governing statutory rules, and interim relief may be granted where the goods are prima facie outside the definition of hazardous waste and denial of clearance would cause irreparable injury.

---