Restricted import of used photocopiers and printers requires DGFT authorisation, yet redemption may still be considered under the foreign trade regime.

Used multifunction digital photocopiers and printers were treated as "other wastes" under the Hazardous and Other Wastes Rules, but not as prohibited waste merely on that basis, so redemption was not barred solely for environmental classification. The import was restricted under the Foreign Trade Policy and required DGFT authorisation, which the importer lacked; that violation remained material and had to be dealt with under the foreign trade regime rather than ignored. The Court also accepted the Tribunal's approach on extended producer responsibility, annual return, Form 6 and Form 7, and upheld reduction of redemption fine and deletion of penalty under Section 114AA, while leaving foreign trade adjudication to the competent authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether used multifunction digital photocopiers and printers were "waste" or "other wastes" under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and whether violation of those Rules attracted mandatory re-export under Rule 15; (ii) whether import required the authorisation contemplated under the Foreign Trade Policy and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and whether the goods could be ordered to be released notwithstanding that violation; (iii) whether the requirements relating to extended producer responsibility, annual return and the documents in Schedule VIII, including Form 6 and Form 7, were satisfied; and (iv) whether the reduction of redemption fine and deletion of penalty under Section 114AA were justified.

Issue (i): Whether used multifunction digital photocopiers and printers were "waste" or "other wastes" under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and whether violation of those Rules attracted mandatory re-export under Rule 15.

Analysis: The definition of "waste" covers material having no further use, whereas "other wastes" includes items listed in Part B and Part D of Schedule III. Used MFDs were held not to be "waste" in the ordinary sense, but they did fall within "other wastes". The Court held that Rule 15 is not a closed definition of illegality and that contravention of the governing import regime can still attract its consequences. However, the goods were not treated as prohibited merely because they were "other wastes".

Conclusion: The Tribunal was wrong in treating the goods as outside the concept of "waste" for the purpose of release, but the classification as "other wastes" did not by itself bar redemption.

Issue (ii): Whether import required the authorisation contemplated under the Foreign Trade Policy and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 and whether the goods could be ordered to be released notwithstanding that violation.

Analysis: The import policy treated used photocopier and multifunction print-and-copy machines as restricted goods importable only on authorisation. The importer did not possess the DGFT authorisation required by the policy. The Court held that the Commissioner could not have treated the Foreign Trade violation as irrelevant, and that redemption under the Foreign Trade Act was the correct route. At the same time, even in the face of violation, the statutory framework permitted redemption and the goods were not liable to be treated as absolutely confiscable without that consideration.

Conclusion: The absence of DGFT authorisation was established, but the goods remained redeemable and could be released on appropriate terms; the release could not be sustained on the Tribunal's reasoning alone.

Issue (iii): Whether the requirements relating to extended producer responsibility, annual return and the documents in Schedule VIII, including Form 6 and Form 7, were satisfied.

Analysis: The Court held that the EPR requirement had to be understood in the context of the applicable e-waste regime in force at the time of import and that the importers had subsequently obtained EPR authorisations. The annual return requirement related to disposal and could not be insisted upon before disposal commenced. Form 6 was not required for the relevant entry in Schedule VIII, and the insistence on Form 7 was not made out on the facts, especially where the claimed MSMED exemption was not applicable to trading in used MFDs. The country of origin certificate and functionality certificate were discussed, but the Court found no basis to treat the goods as non-functional waste.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's acceptance of the importer's case on EPR, annual return, Form 6 and Form 7 was substantially upheld, save that the absence of DGFT authorisation remained a defect.

Issue (iv): Whether the reduction of redemption fine and deletion of penalty under Section 114AA were justified.

Analysis: The Court held that the Tribunal was justified in reducing redemption fine and in deleting penalty under Section 114AA because there was no material showing false or incorrect declaration of the kind required for that penalty. The penalty under Section 112(a) was also not interfered with. The Court, however, made clear that the matter had to be transmitted to the DGFT for adjudication under the Foreign Trade Act and that the eventual redemption fine, if any, would be worked out in that process.

Conclusion: The reduction of redemption fine and deletion of penalty under Section 114AA were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The goods were held redeemable, but the Foreign Trade violation was not erased and required adjudication before the competent authority under the foreign trade regime; the appeal succeeded only to the extent of correcting the legal basis and preserving that statutory process.

Ratio Decidendi: Used multifunction digital photocopiers and printers are restricted "other wastes" under the environmental rules, and while non-compliance with the import regime may still permit redemption of the goods, such redemption must be worked out under the competent foreign trade authority rather than by disregarding the statutory import controls.

---