Import restrictions and waste rules for used multi-functional devices cannot be expanded by executive circulars or schedule listings alone.

Executive letters cannot enlarge a statutory import restriction: the 2012 compulsory registration order did not cover imported multi-functional devices, so absence of BIS registration or a MeitY exemption did not make the import prohibited. Used multi-functional devices with residual life and further utility are not hazardous or other waste merely because they appear in a schedule, so re-export or destruction rules were inapplicable. Confiscation based on the 2012 order was unsustainable, though restricted-import treatment under the Foreign Trade Policy supported limited confiscation; redemption for home consumption remained permissible. Penalty under Section 117 was not leviable absent a breach of Section 49, and the reduced penalty under Section 112(a) was upheld as reasonable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 applied to imported multi-functional devices so as to prohibit their import in the absence of BIS registration or a MeitY exemption; (ii) Whether the imported used multi-functional devices were hazardous or other waste requiring re-export or disposal under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016; (iii) Whether confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962 and redemption of the goods for home consumption were sustainable; and (iv) Whether penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 was leviable and whether the reduction of penalty under Section 112(a) required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the Electronics and Information Technology Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 applied to imported multi-functional devices so as to prohibit their import in the absence of BIS registration or a MeitY exemption.

Analysis: The compulsory registration order of 2012 was issued under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 and the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987. On the reasoning adopted, those enactments did not themselves provide for regulation of imports, and executive letters or circulars could not enlarge the scope of the order. The schedule to the 2012 order covered printers and plotters, but not multi-functional devices. The subsequent 2021 order, which expressly included printers, multi-functional devices and plotters, indicated that such devices were not already covered by the 2012 order.

Conclusion: The 2012 compulsory registration order did not cover the imported multi-functional devices, and the import could not be treated as prohibited on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the imported used multi-functional devices were hazardous or other waste requiring re-export or disposal under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016.

Analysis: The goods were examined by a Chartered Engineer and found to have residual life and further utility. A commodity with further use is not waste within the meaning of the rules. Although used multi-function print and copying machines were mentioned in the schedule to the rules, classification in that schedule could not override the basic requirement that the goods must first be waste. Since the goods were useful second-hand machines and not waste, the provisions dealing with illegal import, re-export and disposal of hazardous or other waste were not attracted.

Conclusion: The imported goods were not hazardous or other waste, and the rules requiring re-export or destruction did not apply.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962 and redemption of the goods for home consumption were sustainable.

Analysis: Confiscation based on the alleged prohibition under the 2012 compulsory registration order was not sustainable because the order did not cover multi-functional devices and executive communications could not create a prohibition. The valuation re-determination was not disputed. At the same time, the import was restricted under the Foreign Trade Policy because the respondents did not hold the required authorization, so confiscation under Section 111(d) was maintainable on that footing. Even so, Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits redemption in cases of confiscation, and there was no legal bar to allowing redemption for home consumption.

Conclusion: Redemption of the goods for home consumption was rightly allowed, while the valuation and the limited confiscation consequence did not call for interference.

Issue (iv): Whether penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 was leviable and whether the reduction of penalty under Section 112(a) required interference.

Analysis: Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962 is an enabling provision permitting storage in a warehouse pending clearance and does not create a prohibition or impose a duty whose breach can attract Section 117. No contravention under Section 49 was established. The reduced penalty under Section 112(a) was found to be fair and reasonable on the facts.

Conclusion: Penalty under Section 117 was not leviable, and the reduction of penalty under Section 112(a) did not warrant interference.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed in substance, the impugned orders were affirmed, and the respondents were entitled to clearance of the goods for home consumption on compliance with the adjudicated duty and dues.

Ratio Decidendi: Executive circulars or departmental letters cannot enlarge the scope of a statutory import restriction, and goods with residual life and further utility are not "waste" merely because they are listed in a waste schedule.

---