Hazardous waste classification requires reliable expert proof; confiscation and re-export directions failed without evidence.

Imported re-rollable scrap with plastic insulation could not be treated as hazardous waste without reliable expert evidence. The Chartered Engineer and CRCL reports did not conclude that the plastic material was hazardous, and the Revenue produced no further expert opinion to support confiscation or re-export. The authorities' finding of hazardous nature was therefore based on assumption and presumption, which was insufficient in law. The appellant's request for spot adjudication did not amount to an undertaking to re-export the goods at its own cost. On that basis, confiscation, redemption fine, and the direction to re-export were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported re-rollable scrap, with plastic insulation, was proved to be hazardous waste so as to justify confiscation, re-export, and redemption fine.

Analysis: The reports of the Chartered Engineer and the Central Revenues Control Laboratory did not conclude that the plastic material was hazardous waste. The Revenue did not obtain any further expert opinion to support the allegation. The finding of hazardous nature recorded by the authorities below was therefore based only on assumption and presumption. The appellant's letter seeking spot adjudication did not amount to an undertaking to re-export the goods at its own cost.

Conclusion: The allegation that the goods were hazardous waste was not established, and the confiscation, redemption fine, and direction to re-export could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding that imported goods are hazardous waste must be supported by reliable expert evidence and cannot rest on mere assumption or presumption; in the absence of such proof, confiscation and allied penalties are unsustainable.

---