Second-hand medical devices with residual working life are not waste, and confiscation without show cause notice fails.

Used medical devices found in good working condition and certified by a Chartered Engineer as having a residual life of five years or more did not fall within the definition of "waste" under Rule 3(38) of the Hazardous and Other Waste Management Rules, 2016, so confiscation on that basis was not sustainable. The adjudication order was also vitiated because no show cause notice under section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 was served before confiscation proceedings, which is a jurisdictional requirement and part of natural justice. The impugned order was therefore set aside and consequential relief, including release of the goods, followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether used medical devices having minimum residual life of five years or more could be treated as 'waste' under the Hazardous and Other Waste Management Rules, 2016 and consequently be liable to confiscation as prohibited goods; (ii) Whether the adjudication order was vitiated for want of a show cause notice under section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether used medical devices having minimum residual life of five years or more could be treated as 'waste' under the Hazardous and Other Waste Management Rules, 2016 and consequently be liable to confiscation as prohibited goods.

Analysis: The imported goods were used medical devices found to be in good working condition and certified by the Chartered Engineer as having a residual life of five years or more. On those admitted facts, the goods did not answer the definition of 'waste' under Rule 3(38) of the Hazardous and Other Waste Management Rules, 2016. The basis adopted in the adjudication order for treating the goods as prohibited waste was therefore not sustainable.

Conclusion: The goods were not waste within Rule 3(38) of the Hazardous and Other Waste Management Rules, 2016, and the confiscation on that premise could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication order was vitiated for want of a show cause notice under section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Service of a show cause notice is a jurisdictional prerequisite for confiscation and penalty proceedings under section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. As no such notice was served before the adjudication order, the proceedings suffered from a foundational jurisdictional defect and were contrary to the requirements of natural justice.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was vitiated for want of a show cause notice and the Adjudicating Authority lacked jurisdiction to pass the order.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the importer was held entitled to release of the goods and consequential reliefs.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods with proven residual working life and good condition are not 'waste' merely because they are second-hand, and confiscation proceedings under customs law cannot be sustained without a valid show cause notice.

---