Hazardous waste classification for imported paints requires scientific proof, not warning labels alone; confiscation and penalties failed.

Imported solvent-based paints declared as stock lot could not be treated as hazardous waste under Basel No. A4070 of Schedule III Part A of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 on the basis of warning labels alone. The record lacked chemical testing, sample analysis, or other reliable material to show that the consignments were waste arising from production, formulation, or use of paints, and there was no demonstrated analysis accompanying the shipment as required by the Rules. An adverse opinion based only on visual inspection and records, without opening the containers or scientific examination, was insufficient. The refusal to allow cross-examination of the CPCB scientist further undermined the proceedings. Confiscation, re-export, redemption fine, and penalty were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported solvent based paints declared as stock lot could be treated as hazardous waste falling under Basel No. A4070 of Schedule III Part A of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 so as to require prior permission and justify confiscation, re-export, fine and penalty, and whether denial of cross-examination of the CPCB officer vitiated the proceedings.

Analysis: The goods were described on the containers with cautionary words such as hazardous, flammable and poison, but there was no chemical test, sample analysis or other reliable material establishing that the consignments were waste arising from the production, formulation or use of paints. The record also did not show that the shipment was accompanied by the analysis contemplated by the Rules. The opinion of the pollution control authority was based on the available records and visual inspection, without opening the containers or conducting any scientific examination. The request for cross-examination of the concerned scientist was rejected, although the adverse opinion formed the basis of the confiscation proceedings. In these circumstances, treating hazardous goods as hazardous waste merely from warning labels on the containers was not legally sustainable.

Conclusion: The goods were not proved to be hazardous waste under the Rules, prior permission was not shown to be necessary, and the confiscation, re-export order, redemption fine and penalty could not be sustained.

---