Restricted goods imported without authorisation may be redeemed on market value; used multifunction devices were also treated as other wastes.

Used multifunction devices imported without prior authorisation were treated as restricted goods, not prohibited goods, under the Foreign Trade and customs framework; the absence of authorisation justified detention but did not require compulsory re-export, and redemption on payment of market value was permissible. The goods were also accepted as "other wastes" under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 because they fell within the relevant entries for used multifunction print and copying machines and had utility for several years. Substantial compliance with the prescribed documentation was accepted, and the release of the consignments on redemption terms was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether used multifunction devices imported without authorisation were restricted goods capable of redemption or prohibited goods warranting compulsory re-export; and (ii) whether the imported goods were correctly treated as "other wastes" under the waste management regime.

Issue (i): Whether used multifunction devices imported without authorisation were restricted goods capable of redemption or prohibited goods warranting compulsory re-export.

Analysis: The import was made without the requisite authorisation under the Foreign Trade Policy. The statutory scheme distinguished between prohibited goods and restricted goods. On a harmonious reading of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, the Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993, and Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, goods that are restricted but imported without authorisation may still be released on redemption at market value. The absence of prior authorisation justified detention, but did not convert the goods into prohibited goods for all purposes.

Conclusion: The goods were not liable to compulsory re-export merely because they had been imported without authorisation; redemption on payment of market value was permissible and the finding was in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the imported goods were correctly treated as "other wastes" under the waste management regime.

Analysis: The goods were found to have utility for several years and were covered by the relevant waste management entries for used multifunction print and copying machines. The Court accepted the classification of the goods as "other wastes" under Rule 3(1)(23) of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. It also accepted substantial compliance with the documentation requirements under Rule 13(2) and the related schedule entries, and held that Rule 15 did not displace the customs law consequence of redemption for restricted goods in the factual setting.

Conclusion: The classification and the consequential directions were upheld, and this issue was in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the release of the consignments on redemption terms, accepted the classification under the waste management rules, and refused to interfere with the orders under challenge.

Ratio Decidendi: Restricted goods imported without authorisation may be redeemed on payment of market value under the customs and foreign trade framework; they are not to be treated as prohibited goods merely because the requisite authorisation was absent.

---