Re-export of hazardous waste upheld against carrier, with reimbursement claims left to be pursued separately under law.

Imported consignments found on scrutiny and by Pollution Control Board report to be plastic waste rather than merely recyclable crushed PET bottles could be directed for re-export, and that direction was upheld against the liner/carrier engaged in the shipment. The Court accepted that the carrier was the proper addressee of the impugned order on the facts, while leaving any reimbursement claim against the exporter or importer to be worked out separately in accordance with law. The writ petition failed and the re-export direction stood confirmed within the stipulated time.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order directing the carrier to re-export the imported hazardous waste at its own cost was valid and liable to be sustained.

Analysis: The imported consignments remained under scrutiny for an extended period, and the Pollution Control Board's report confirmed that the material comprised plastic waste and not merely recyclable crushed pet bottles. In that backdrop, the direction requiring re-export was treated as justified. The Court also accepted the position that the impugned order was correctly passed against the liner/carrier engaged by the exporter, and observed that the carrier could seek reimbursement from the exporter or importer in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The challenge to the re-export direction failed and the order against the petitioner was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed and the direction to re-export the consignments within the stipulated time stood confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported consignments are found to be hazardous waste, a direction for re-export can be sustained against the carrier engaged in the shipment, with any claim for reimbursement left to be worked out separately in accordance with law.

---