Illegal import of hazardous waste triggers mandatory re-export, while intermediary penalties fail absent proof of knowledge.

Where hazardous waste is illegally imported, the governing rules require the importer to re-export the goods at its own cost within the prescribed period, without first inquiring whether the import was intentional or mistaken. The commentary also notes that penalties may be sustained against the importer where the goods differ from the declaration, but separate penalties on the proprietor are not justified where the proprietary concern and proprietor are treated as one. Penalties on the CHA, freight forwarding agent and G. Card Holder cannot stand absent evidence of knowledge or involvement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether goods illegally imported as hazardous waste were liable to be re-exported under the applicable rules; (ii) Whether the penalties imposed on the importer, proprietor, CHA, freight forwarding agent and G. Card Holder were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether goods illegally imported as hazardous waste were liable to be re-exported under the applicable rules.

Analysis: Rule 17(2) of the Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules provides that in case of illegal import of hazardous waste, the importer shall re-export the waste in question at his cost within the prescribed period. The goods found in the containers were treated as illegally imported, and the rule was applied without entering into the question whether the import was intentional or mistaken.

Conclusion: Re-export of the goods was directed and the authorities were required to permit re-export.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalties imposed on the importer, proprietor, CHA, freight forwarding agent and G. Card Holder were sustainable.

Analysis: The importer was held liable because the goods found were different from the goods declared, and no evidence was produced to show that the discrepancy was only due to the foreign supplier. At the same time, the penalty on the importer was reduced in view of the limited duty involved. The separate penalty on the proprietor was set aside because the proprietary concern and proprietor were treated as one and the same. The penalties on the CHA, freight forwarding agent and G. Card Holder were also set aside because there was no evidence of knowledge on their part.

Conclusion: The importer's penalty was sustained in reduced form, the proprietor's penalty was set aside, and the penalties on the CHA, freight forwarding agent and G. Card Holder were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded to the extent of permitting re-export and setting aside the penalties on the proprietor and the connected intermediaries, while the importer remained liable to a reduced penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Where hazardous waste is illegally imported, the importer can be directed to re-export it under the governing rules, and penalties on ancillary intermediaries cannot stand in the absence of evidence of knowledge or involvement.

---