Hazardous waste classification requires clear legal basis, while unauthorised import of used goods still triggers confiscation and penalty.

Imported second-hand goods could not be treated as hazardous waste absent a specific notification or other clear legal basis bringing them within the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008, so the re-export direction was set aside. However, old and used goods imported without the required licence under paragraph 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 were in breach of the policy and therefore liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, with penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The absence of hazardous-waste classification did not affect the customs consequences of the admitted policy violation.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the imported second-hand goods could be treated as hazardous waste so as to justify confiscation and a direction to re-export them; (ii) whether confiscation and penalty were sustainable for import of old and used goods without the required licence under the Foreign Trade Policy.

Issue (i): whether the imported second-hand goods could be treated as hazardous waste so as to justify confiscation and a direction to re-export them.

Analysis: The imported goods could be treated as hazardous waste only if there was a specific notification or other clear legal basis bringing them within the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008. The record did not show any such notification, and the goods were not shown to fall within the listed schedules. In the absence of a specific legal provision, the goods could not be branded hazardous waste, and the mandatory re-export consequence under the hazardous-waste regime was not attracted.

Conclusion: The goods were not hazardous waste, and the direction to re-export them was set aside.

Issue (ii): whether confiscation and penalty were sustainable for import of old and used goods without the required licence under the Foreign Trade Policy.

Analysis: The goods were imported in violation of paragraph 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014, framed under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, because old and used goods of that kind required a licence from the Director General of Foreign Trade. Such import in breach of the policy rendered the goods liable to confiscation under section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, and exposed the importer to penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The absence of hazardous-waste classification did not affect the consequence flowing from the admitted policy violation.

Conclusion: Confiscation and penalty were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the extent of deleting the re-export condition, while the confiscation and penalties for unlawful import were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods imported in violation of the Foreign Trade Policy may be confiscated and penalised under the Customs Act, but a direction to re-export can be sustained only when the goods are shown by a specific legal notification or provision to be hazardous waste.

---