Compulsory registration and waste rules did not justify absolute confiscation of used multifunction devices.

Import of old and used multifunction devices was examined against the Compulsory Registration Order, 2012 and the 2016 waste-management rules. The settled view applied was that multifunction devices did not have a specific entry under the compulsory registration regime, so BIS registration could not be insisted upon on that basis alone, and the goods were not treated as prohibited hazardous waste on the facts discussed. On confiscation, absolute confiscation was found unwarranted where the import was not shown to be prohibited per se; release on redemption fine, penalty and customs duty was stated to be the appropriate monetary condition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether import of old and used multifunction devices was in violation of the Compulsory Registration Order, 2012 and the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and the E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2016; (ii) Whether absolute confiscation of the goods was justified or the goods were liable to be released on payment of redemption fine and penalty.

Issue (i): Whether import of old and used multifunction devices was in violation of the Compulsory Registration Order, 2012 and the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and the E-Waste (Management) Rules, 2016.

Analysis: The imported machines were treated as multifunction devices and the controversy was whether they attracted compulsory BIS registration and were to be treated as prohibited or hazardous goods. The settled view relied upon was that multifunction devices did not find a specific place in the schedule to the Compulsory Registration Order, 2012, and therefore compulsory registration could not be insisted upon merely because some component machines were separately covered. On the environmental law issue, the goods were considered in light of the definition of waste, the import conditions in the 2016 Rules, and the treatment of used MFDs as other wastes rather than as prohibited hazardous waste. The Tribunal followed prior decisions holding that the import was not hit by the alleged violations in the manner urged by the department.

Conclusion: The alleged violation of the Compulsory Registration Order, 2012 and the environmental rules was not sustained against the importer.

Issue (ii): Whether absolute confiscation of the goods was justified or the goods were liable to be released on payment of redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that prior decisions had consistently held that imports of such multifunction devices were not liable to absolute confiscation where the contravention was not one of outright prohibition and the goods were otherwise releasable on monetary terms. Following that settled approach, the Tribunal applied the earlier yardstick for relief and held that confiscation should not be absolute. Instead, release was to be permitted on payment of redemption fine and penalty, along with the applicable customs duty.

Conclusion: Absolute confiscation was set aside and release of the goods on payment of redemption fine and penalty was directed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was held unsustainable and the importer obtained relief against confiscation, with clearance of the goods permitted on monetary conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where multifunction devices do not find a specific notification-based entry under the compulsory registration regime and the goods are not shown to be prohibited per se, absolute confiscation is not warranted and the goods may be released on appropriate redemption fine and penalty.

---