Used tyres capable of direct reuse escape hazardous-waste treatment, but restricted-import licensing still sustains confiscation and penalty.

Used tyres capable of direct reuse were treated as outside the hazardous-waste entry for waste pneumatic tyres, so no prior environmental permission was required. The absence of BIS certification also could not justify confiscation or penalty because that requirement applied to newly manufactured tyres, not used tyres. However, import of second-hand tyres without the specific licence required under the trade policy remained a restricted import, attracting confiscation and penalty. The goods were nevertheless permitted to be cleared for home consumption on payment of redemption fine, duty and charges.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether used tyres capable of direct reuse fall within Entry B-3140 of Schedule III Part B of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 and require prior permission of the Ministry of Environment and Forests; (ii) whether the import of such tyres without a specific licence was liable to confiscation and penalty; (iii) whether the absence of BIS certification justified confiscation and penalty.

Issue (i): whether used tyres capable of direct reuse fall within Entry B-3140 of Schedule III Part B of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 and require prior permission of the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

Analysis: The entry covers waste pneumatic tyres, but excludes tyres which do not lead to resource recovery, recycling, reclamation or direct reuse. The imported tyres were found by the examining authorities to be used tyres and capable of direct reuse. On that factual basis, they were outside the scope of the hazardous-waste entry and could not be treated as waste requiring prior environmental permission.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee. The imported tyres are not hazardous waste within the meaning of the entry and no prior permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forests was required.

Issue (ii): whether the import of such tyres without a specific licence was liable to confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: Used tyres were treated as a restricted import under the applicable trade policy, and no specific import licence had been produced. That statutory restriction attracted confiscation and consequential penalty. However, since the goods were not hazardous waste, they could not be confined to re-export only and were capable of being cleared for home consumption on payment of an appropriate redemption fine.

Conclusion: The issue is decided partly against the assessee. Confiscation and penalty were upheld, but the goods were allowed to be cleared for home consumption on payment of fine, duty and charges.

Issue (iii): whether the absence of BIS certification justified confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The BIS requirement applied to newly manufactured tyres and not to used tyres. Since the goods were used tyres, the absence of BIS certification could not sustain confiscation or penalty on that ground.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee. The BIS-based objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The order substantially relieved the importer by rejecting the hazardous-waste and BIS objections, while maintaining the restricted-import violation with modified redemption terms and permitting home consumption on payment of the reduced fine, penalty and applicable dues.

Ratio Decidendi: Used tyres capable of direct reuse are excluded from the hazardous-waste entry covering waste pneumatic tyres, but their import remains subject to the trade-policy restriction applicable to second-hand tyres and may attract confiscation and penalty for want of the required licence.

---