Import restrictions need express legal authority; circulars cannot expand coverage, and usable second-hand devices are not hazardous waste.

Executive circulars cannot enlarge an import restriction beyond the parent statute and rules; the 2012 registration order did not cover Multi-Functional Devices, so confiscation under section 111(d) on that basis was not sustainable. Goods with residual life and further utility are not "waste" merely because they are used, so the Hazardous and Other Wastes Rules, 2016 did not require re-export or disposal. Redemption under section 125 and the reduced penalty under section 112(a) were upheld, while penalty under section 117 for an alleged section 49 violation was set aside because section 49 creates no positive prohibition.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Multi-Functional Devices imported as second-hand goods were covered by the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirement of Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 and the MeitY circulars so as to attract confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) whether the goods were hazardous or other waste so as to require re-export or disposal under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016; (iii) whether redemption of the goods under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and reduction of penalty under section 112(a) were proper; and (iv) whether penalty under section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged violation of section 49 was sustainable.

Issue (i): whether Multi-Functional Devices imported as second-hand goods were covered by the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirement of Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 and the MeitY circulars so as to attract confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962

Analysis: The registration order of 2012 was framed under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 and the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, which did not provide a power to regulate imports. The specified entry in that order covered printers and plotters, but not Multi-Functional Devices. The MeitY circulars and letters could not enlarge the scope of the order or substitute for a statutory prohibition. In fiscal and penal legislation, any restriction on import must be expressed clearly and cannot be inferred by administrative clarification.

Conclusion: The goods were not covered by the 2012 order, and confiscation under section 111(d) on that basis was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the goods were hazardous or other waste so as to require re-export or disposal under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016

Analysis: The goods were found by the Chartered Engineer to have residual life and further utility. Goods with further use do not answer the definition of waste merely because they are used. Although used multifunction print and copying machines appear in the schedule, the rules apply only where the goods are waste in the first place. Since the goods were useful articles and their value had even been enhanced for customs purposes, they could not be treated as hazardous waste or other waste attracting mandatory re-export or disposal.

Conclusion: The Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 did not apply to the goods.

Issue (iii): whether redemption of the goods under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and reduction of penalty under section 112(a) were proper

Analysis: Even though the import was restricted under the Foreign Trade Policy for want of authorization, confiscation under section 111(d) did not preclude redemption. Section 125 permits redemption of confiscated goods, and the Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the redemption fine and penalty on the facts of the case. The valuation re-determination was not disputed, and there was no reason to interfere with the allowance of redemption for home consumption or with the reduced penalty under section 112(a).

Conclusion: Redemption under section 125 and reduction of penalty under section 112(a) were upheld.

Issue (iv): whether penalty under section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged violation of section 49 was sustainable

Analysis: Section 49 is an enabling provision permitting storage of imported goods pending clearance; it does not impose a positive obligation or prohibition whose breach can amount to contravention. Since no act or omission contrary to section 49 was shown, section 117 could not be invoked to impose a residuary penalty for that alleged default.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 117 was rightly set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed, the common orders in appeal were upheld, and the goods were directed to be cleared for home consumption on payment of the duty and dues determined in those orders.

Ratio Decidendi: Executive circulars cannot enlarge the scope of an import restriction beyond the parent statute and rules, and goods with residual utility are not "waste" for the purpose of hazardous-waste control provisions; in fiscal and penal matters, prohibition and confiscation must rest on express legal authority.

---