Note: forwarded message attached.
Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase
| Date: | Mon, 1 May 2006 08:19:10 -0700 (PDT) |
| From: | "Venkat Kumaraswamy" <vmkumaraswamy@yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | CIU – New Custom House, Mumbai Developed intelligence that large volumes of Furnace Oils were to be imported at UNDERVALUED Prices !!!! |
| To: | adgvigwest@cbec.gov.in, mail2vigilance@indiatimes.com |
| CC: | vmkumaraswamy@yahoo.com, dgvig@cbec.gov.in, adgvig@cbec.gov.in, adgvignorth@cbec.gov.in, adgvigsouth@cbec.gov.in, adgvigeast@cbec.gov.in |
HTML Attachment [ Download File | Save to Yahoo! Briefcase ]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 657 OF 1995
Research Foundation For Science
….. Petitioner (s)
Technology and Natural Resources
Policy
Versus
Union of India and Anr.
….. Respondent (s)
[With SLP (c) No. 16175 of 1997 and Civil Appeal No. 7660 of 1997]
JUDGMENT
Y.K. Sabharwal. J
Considering the alarming situation created by dumping of hazardous waste, its
generation and serious and irreversible damage as a result thereof to the environment , flora and
fauna, and also having regard to the magnitude of the problem as a result of failure of the
authorities to appreciate the gravity of situation and the need for prompt measures being taken to
prevent serious and adverse consequences, a High Powered Committee (HPC) was constituted
by this by this Court with Prof. M.G. K. Menon as its Chairman, in terms of order dated 30
th
October, 1997. The Committee Comprised of experts from different disciplines and fields and
was required to examine all matters in depth relating to hazardous waste.
On consideration of the detailed reports submitted by the HPC various directions have
been issued by this Court from time to time. Presently, we are concerned with the presence of
hazardous waste oil in 133 containers lying at Nhava Sheva Port as noticed by HPC. On the
directions of this Court, the oil contained in the said 133 containers was sent for laboratory test to
determine whether same is hazardous waste oil or not. It has been found to be hazardous waste.
On consideration of report of HPC, the result of laboratory test and entire material on
record, this Court came to the prima facie conclusion that importers illegally imported waste oil
in 133 containers in the garb of lubricating oil. In terms of the order dated 25
th
September, 2003,
notices were directed to be issued to 15 importers who imported the said consignment as also to
the Commissioner of Customs. The importers were directed to show cause why the consignment
shall not be ordered to be re-exported or destroyed at their cost. Since, the Ministry of
Environment and Forests had spent a sum of Rs. 6.35 lakhs on the laboratory tests, the importers
| Page 3 |
were also required to show cause why the said amount be not recovered from them and why all
of them shall not be directed to make payment of compensation on polluter pays principal and
other action taken against them.
The affidavits showing cause were filed by the importers. During the course of hearing ,
one of the contentions urged on behalf of the importers was that in respect of consignments in
question, adjudicating proceedings were pending before commissioner of Customs, Mumbai and
this Court may, therefore, defer the decision on the aspect of re-export or destruction of the
goods. In the order dated 11 March,2004, it was observed that for the purpose of present
proceedings, it is strictly not necessary to await the final decision of adjudication proceedings but
a report from the Commissioner of Customs may assist the court in deciding the aspects
indicated in the order dated 25
th
September, 2003. In this view, the Commissioner of Customs
was directed to sent a report to this Court on the question whether the consignment in issue is
waste oil within the meaning of the term ‘waste oil’ as per Basel Convention or Hazardous
Waste Rules, 1989 as amended in the year 2000 and/or amended in the year 2003 also having
regard to the relevant notifications issued on this aspect. The Commissioner of Customs was
directed to give reasonable opportunity to the importers to put forth their viewpoint before him
while examining the matter and was further directed to associate the Monitoring Committee that
was constituted in terms of orders dated 14
th
October, 2003 reported in 2003 (9) SCALE 303.
The question whether any further testing is required to be done as claimed by the importers was
left to be decided by the Commissioner in consultation with Monitoring Committee.
Detailed reports have been filed by Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai and
the Monitoring Committee. We have perused the relevant material including those reports and
have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for
the Ministry of Environment and Forests as also learned counsel appearing for the Commissioner
of Customs and other learned counsel representing the importers. It deserves to be noted that the
question to be determined in these proceedings is limited to the environment issue. The issue is
in regard to the appropriate directions for dealing with the consignments in question, having
regard to the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle. The main question is whether
directions shall be issued for the destruction of the consignments with a view to protect the
environment and, if not, in what other manner the consignments may be dealt with.
The report of the Commissioner of Customs sets out a brief history of the case, history of
various Conventions and Laws formulated thereupon from time to time, correlating the same to
the various test findings.
The brief history, inter alia, states that :
“In the month of August – September 2000, the Central Intelligence Unit, New Custom
House, Mumbai developed intelligence that large volumes of Furnace Oil were to be imported as
containerized cargo, at the Jawaharlal Nehru Port at undervalued prices. Accordingly the Central
Intelligence Unit maintained a discreet watch at such consignments of Furnace Oil imported at
JN Port. Emphasis was laid on furnace oil stuffed in containers, as the same was quite unusual.
Furnace Oil is basically imported in bulk on account of its large volumetric requirements by the
industry and its relatively low valve makes its import as containerized cargo economically
| Page 4 |
unviable unless the value is suppressed, or some other mis-declaration was restored to, to offset
the increased cost of packing and transportation in containers. True to the intelligence gathered,
a large number of consignments of Furnace Oil, packed in containers arrived at JN port in Aug-
Sept and the same were detained for further investigation. In all these cases the declared prices
were in the range of US$ 90 to 125 per MT as against the erstwhile international price of US$
150, when imported in bulk.
During the course of the investigation, samples were sent to the departmental laboratory
for conducting tests. The standard reference parameters available pertained to those of Fuel Oil
under BIS 1593-1982. Under these standards certain characteristics like Acidity, Ash content,
Flash point, Kinematic viscosity, Sulphur content and water content for Fuel oils have been
prescribed by the Bureau of Indian Standards and depending on the specifications the fuel oils
get divided into four grades. It is pertinent to note that these standards do not define waste oil or
hazardous wastes.
Initial testing of samples, by the Custom House laboratory, drawn from some of the
consignments indicated that the goods were not Furnace oil. The Laboratory, however, could not
categorically state whether the samples were used/waste oil, as they did not have the
standards/specifications of used/waste oil. Inquiries made with I.O.C. and H.P.C.L also
revealed that though they could test and report whether the oil was conforming to the standards
of Fuel/Furnace oil but they were not in a position to state whether the same were used/waste oil.
As categorical test reports were not forthcoming it was decided to get the samples tested and an
opinion obtained from the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL), New Delhi. Fourteen
samples, pertaining to Vidya Chemical Corporation, PCS Petrochemical, Shiv Priya Overseas,
Royal Implex, Eleven Star Escon and Valley International, were accordingly forwarded to CRCL
for testing and their opinion on 24.08.2000. The test results forwarded by the CRCL in all the 14
samples indicated that none of the samples tallied with the specifications of Furnace Oil and all
were off specification material i.e. waste oil. Thereafter the CIU seized all the consignments
involving 158 containers. One consignment comprising of 25 containers was conditionally
released on execution of Bank Guarantee for the differential Duty. Thus a total of 133 containers
were left.
On 05.10.2001 the MPCB forwarded a final report from the IIP to the Custom House
wherein it was stated that the halogen content tests were done at the Shriram Institute of
Industrial Research (SIIR), New Delhi and the PCB content tests were done at the National
Institute of Oceanography, Goa. The report concluded that all the 20 samples sent to the IIP
were found to be hazardous. In all these cases, where SCNs had earlier been issued, addendums
were issued afresh keeping in view the fact that since hazardous wastes imported in violation of
the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 had to be re-exported or dealt with as
provided for in the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1988. Personal
hearings were held in several cases by the Commissioner, Mumbai for adjudication of these
cases…….â€
| Page 5 |
In regard to Basel Convention, the report states as under :
“The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous
Wastes and their Disposal was adopted by the conference of the Plenipotentiaries on 22.03.1989.
Article I of the Convention, dealing with the scope of the convention, defined ‘Hazardous
Wastes’ as follows:
(a)
Wastes that belong to any category contained in Annexure I, unless they do
not possess any of the characteristics contained in Annexure III; and
(b)
Wastes that arte not covered under paragraph (a) but are defined as or are
considered to be, hazardous wastes by the domestic legislation of the party
of export, import or transit.
In the Annexure I to the Convention, referred to above at (a), dealing with categories of
wastes to be controlled, the following categories of wastes are pertinent to the subject matter.
(a)Y8
Waste mineral oils unfit for that originally intended used
(b)Y9
Waste oils/water, hydrocarbons/waster mixtures, emulsions
(c)Y10
Waste substances and articles contained or contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and /or polychlorinated terphenyls
(PCTs) and /or polychlorinated biphenyls (PBBs).
Annex III gives the list of Hazardous Characteristics such as Explosive, Flammable
liquids, Flammable solids, Substances or wastes liable to spontaneous combustion, Substances or
wastes which in contact with water emit flammable gases, Oxidizing , Organic Peroxides,
Poisonous, Infectious substances, Corrosives, Liberation of toxic gases in contact with air or
water, Toxic (Delayed or Chronic), Ecotoxic.
The wastes are further specifically covered under Annex VIII in List A which states that
‘Wastes contained in this Annex are characterized as hazardous under Article I, paragraph 1 (a),
of this Convention, and their designation on this Annex does not preclude the use of Annex III to
demonstrate that a waste is not hazardous.’ In this List A specific attention is drawn towards the
category A3 which deals with ‘Wastes containing Principally organic constituents, which may
contain metals and inorganic materials.’ Sub-division A 3020 of this category deals with ‘Waste
mineral oils unfit for their originally intended use.’
It is nobody’s case that the material imported is not mineral oil or of mineral origin. In
other words the category of Wastes to be concentrated upon is A 3020 as it specifically deals
with mineral oils. After identifying the exact category of the material it remains to be seen
whether the imported material possesses any of the characteristics as mentioned in Annex III to
the Convention. All the test reports obtained from the Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun,
indicate that the materials have PCB.
| Page 6 |
In respect of the impact of the presence of PCBs on the waste oil, reference is made to the
‘Technical Guidelines on Hazardous Waste: Waste Oils from Petroleum Origins and Sources
(Y8)’ issued by the Basel Convention. Paragraph 10, outlining the characteristics of PCBs is
reproduced for reference – Particular concern centers on a family of substances known as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) which combine excellent insulation and heat transfer
characteristics, with high stability and non-inflammability. However they are environmentally
extremely persistent and bio-accumulative, toxic (and a suspected carcinogen), and if burned
under unsuitable conditions, will give rise to toxic products of combustion including dioxins and
dibenzofurans……. Paragraph 30 indicates that several countries have brought about legislation
to define the concentration of the PCB below which no concern need be felt and that 50 ppm is
the fairly established limit.
All these definitions and various clauses in the Convention indicate that the contents of
the convention cannot be seen in isolation to the follow-up laws framed in this regard by the
individual member countries. The contents of the Convention are only in the form of guidelines
to the member nations and the final question of whether the material is Hazardous Waste or not
cannot be answered on the basis of the contents of the Convention alone. With reference to the
presence of PCBs in waste oils, the National Laws framed need to be examined to categorically
state whether the subject cargo is hazardous or not. The Contention of all the importers that
their material had not violated the 50 ppm limit prescribed in the Basel Convention and
were thus not Hazardous Waste has not strength if the same are not examined in the light
of the Laws framed by the Country in the process of aligning with the recommendations of
the Convention as the contents of the Convention are by themselves not any Law that could
be implemented (to be discussed later).â€
The report makes a detailed reference to The Hazardous Wastes (Management and
Handling) Rules, 1989 as introduced in 1989 and amendments effected in January 2000 and in
the year 2003. In regard to amendments made in January 2000 whereafter the imports were
made, the report notices as under.
“For the purpose of import, Rule 3 (i) (c) defined Hazardous Waste as those listed in List
‘A’ and ‘B’ of Schedule-3 (Part A) if they possessed any of the hazardous characteristics listed in
Part-B of Schedule.
List A of Schedule 3 is a reflection of List A as Annex III of the Basel Convention and
the hazardous wastes appearing in this list of Schedule 3 are restricted and cannot be allowed to
be imported into the country without DGFT License. In this list attention is drawn to the entry
‘Waste mineral oils unfit for their originally intended use’ against Basel No A 3020. Such
Waste mineral oils would be characterized as hazardous if they possess any of the Characteristics
enumerated in Part B of Schedule 3.The presence of PCB contents in Waste mineral oils renders
the material carcinogenic, bio accumulative and ecotoxic. Therefore, any consignment of Waste
mineral Oil having PCB would be rendered Hazardous.†(Emphasis supplied)
Thus, from the rules, it is clear and evident that the presence of PCB contents in any
consignment of waste mineral oil would render such oil as hazardous waste.
| Page 7 |
On the aforesaid basis, most of the consignments have been found to be hazardous waste.
The only consignment imported by Eleven Star Esscon was found not to be hazardous but off
specification fit for re-refining. In respect of one container of oil imported by Royal Implex
though the samples were not sent to the IIP for further analysis in respect of Organic halides and
PCB determination, the report concluded that it would not be advisable to conduct those tests at
that late stage as the prolonged storage may have deteriorated material further and on the basis of
the test results available it was obvious that the material was not fit for re-refining.
The report of the Commissioner of Customs has characterized the goods as hazardous
waste. The conclusions arrived at by Commissioner of Customs are as under.â€
“The erstwhile Law therefore had enough provisions to determine whether any given
sample of Fuel Oil had hazardous characteristics or not. And based on the directions inherent in
these Laws, it has been conclusively proved that all the subject 133 containers of Furnace oil
contain Hazardous Waste Oil. It is also abundantly clear that this conclusion was arrived at
under the provision of the Law prevalent at that time. The importers had therefore imported
Hazardous Wastes in complete and flagrant violation of the Law. I, therefore , hold and
conclude that the goods, viz. Furnace oil imported and contained in the said 133 containers are
hazardous.â€
Noticing that the entire cargo had been imported without proper licence and its
movement to the country is illegal, reference has been made in the report to Rule 15(2) which
provides that (i) the waste in question shall be shipped back within thirty days either to the
exporter or to the exporting country or (ii) shall be disposed of within thirty days from the date
of off-loading subject to inability to comply with sub-rule 2(i), in accordance with the procedure
laid down by the State Pollution Control Board or Committee in consultation with Central
Pollution Control Board.
In regard to the possibility of re-export of the cargo, reference has been made to Article
9(2) (a) of the Basel Convention which provides that in the case of illegal traffic as a result of
conduct on the part of the exporter, the state of export shall ensure that the waste in question is
taken back by the exporter within 30 days from the time the state of export was informed. It has
been stated that even though there are provisions, both in international conventions, like Basel
Convention, and in our national laws, a holistic view needs to be taken in view of the prevailing
circumstances. The exporters of the cargo may not take the cargo after 4 years. Besides a whole
range of time consuming protocol measures may be involved. The re-export of cargo at this
point of time and under the conditions in which the cargo was lying has been ruled out also
stating that issues like transportation charges and the ownership and acceptability of the cargo at
the destination point may be highly vexed and difficult to surmount. In this backdrop, the
possibility of disposal locally as a one-time measure was examined.
Regarding the disposal of the imported hazardous waste, the report states that certain
drastic one-time measures are required to be taken. Both the modes of disposal, i.e. by
subjecting the waste to re-cycling and alternatively by incinerating it, were examined. It has
been suggested that overlooking the PCB presence up to 50 ppm, if the waste oil conformed to
the other specifications mentioned in schedule 6, then such consignments may be considered for
| Page 8 |
recycling. These consignments could be adjudicated and released to the importers only under the
condition that they would get the material recycled, under the control and supervision of the
Central Pollution Control Board authorities, in Units registered with MOEF and having
consent/authorization from by the State Pollution Control Board. Further suggestion is that
consignments not conforming to the specifications of Schedule 6 and/or having PCB in excess of
50 ppm may be subjected to incineration at the importer’s cost at the Hazardous Incinerator
under supervision of the State Pollution Control Board. In cases where the cargo is required to
be incinerated, besides cleaning the pollution caused due to leakages, the suggestions is that the
importer may also be directed to bear the cost of transportation to the incineration site, its
handling there and its incineration costs till final disposal.
Further, the report recommends that the importers may be directed to pay all the testing
charges incurred by MPCB (Rs.6.5 lakhs) and Customs (Rs.7.5 lakhs approximately) from the
initial stage and till final disposal of goods. It also notices that the two importers did not appear
for personal hearing despite several reminders. All the 15 importers have been divided into five
different categories.
In category one, there are 10 importers in respect where of recommendations is for
recycling or incineration. One importer indochem had been placed in category two in which
though sample passed other tests, but presence of PCB rendered the goods hazardous. The
recommendation is for release of goods to the importer. The sample of Royal Impex has higher
lead content and not fit for recycling. Sample was not tested for PCB contents. Placing it in
category three, recommendation is that request for re-export may be considered by this Court.
The import of Eleven Star Esscon has been placed in category four. These goods have been
confiscated absolutely. The goods have heavy metal concentrations but within recycling limits
and do not have organic holds and PCBs. Recycling has been recommended. The two importers
who were proceeded exports have been placed in category five and recommendation is that
action on above lines be taken.
The attention of this court has been drawn to the condition of the waste oil stock lying in
the customs area pointing out that many of the drums have exploded and the contents are spread
in the area which is definitely a fire hazard and is also causing grave damage to the environment.
The report further points out that in addition to the 133 containers, another group of
imports by various parties comprising of an additional 170 containers, which had been imported
after the import of 133 containers, are also lodged with the Custodians in the same area and are
more or less in the same condition. It has also been pointed out that the importers of these 170
containers have not filed any import clearance documents with the Customs so far.
The aforesaid report of Commissioner of Customs has been considered by the Monitoring
Committee. The Monitoring Committee has recommended disposal of all consignments except
one by incineration in consultation with two Pollution Control Boards mentioned in its report.
It has noticed that adequate facilities are not available even with registered refiners for re-
refining oil containing PCBs. Notes has also been taken of the fact that the Director, IIP,
Dehradun has mentioned that since all 133 containers have been lying at Mumbai Port since
2000, the oil would have undergone considerable degradation in last four years. Another
| Page 9 |
important factor that has been taken into consideration is about the cost of re-refining being
exorbitant and, therefore, it was not economically feasible to re-refine the oil in question.
In respect of consignments of category one, learned counsel for importers sought to
contend that PCBs were within the limits prescribed by the Basel Convention and also that the
same were of small quantity, it being minimal and negligible and, therefore, the recommendation
of the Monitoring Committee for destruction of oil by incineration does not deserve to be
accepted. Reference was also made to Technical Guidelines on Hazardous Waste: Waste Oils
From Petroleum Origins and Sources [(Y8) Basel Convention] to contend that the presence of
PCBs and waste oil as a secondary fuel upto 50 PPM was fairly acceptable in respect of
marketing and use. On this basis and with reference to the test report, it was contended that since
the PCB in the consignments in question being minimal and negligible, there was no
contravention of the Basel Convention. It was contended that as per recommendations of
Commissioner of Customs re-refining was possible but the Monitoring Committee has only
recommended destruction by incineration without any legal bases.
The Monitoring Committee comprises of experts in the field. It has recommended
destruction of the consignment by incineration. The PCBs may be within permissible limit
insofar as parameters of Basel Convention are concerned but, at the same time, it has to be kept
in view that parameters fixed by the Basel Convention are only guidelines and the individual
countries can provide different criterion in their national law to lay down the limits of
concentration of PCBs so as to label it as hazardous waste. Even European Community is
considering to reduce PCBs concentration from 50 PPM to 20 PPM to make it consistent with
the limits on oils being used as fuel. Be that as it may, insofar as our country is concerned, the
provision is that the presence of PCBs shall be of non-detectable level. The national law laying
stricter condition has to prevail. The Commissioner of Customs, on detailed examination, has
concluded that the import was in complete and flagrant violation of law. The import is of
hazardous waste. In the garb of furnace oil, hazardous wastes has been imported. Further, many
of the drums have exploded and the contents spread in the area which besides being a fire hazard
is also causing grave damage to the environments. PCBs are environmentally extremely
persistent and bio-accumulative, toxic (and a suspected carcinogen), and if burnt under
unsuitable conditions, will give rise to toxic products of combustion including dioxins and
dibenzofurans. Great care is required in assessing and selecting disposal options for such oils.
The CPCB which is implementing the Registration Scheme for actual users of hazardous wastes
including used/waste oil, is of the opinion that adequate facilities are not available even with
registered refiners for re-refining oil containing PCBs. That apart, oil regeneration technologies
depend to some degree of quality of waste oil. Regeneration process involves the application of
reasonably sophisticated technology and require care and expertise in their operation. The
illegally imported oils remained on the port for four years and would have undergone
considerable degradation during this period. Nothing tangible has been shown so as to take a
view different than the one recommended by the Monitoring Committee.
Learned counsel appearing for Royal Impex contended that in the consignment imported
by it only Ash contents were more as per the test report on record and, therefore, the
consignment may be released to the importer. It was also contended that the sample was not sent
to IIP for further test in respect of organic halides and PCB determination. The report, however,
| Page 10 |
states that it may not be feasible to conduct those tests now as prolonged storage may have
deteriorated the material further. According to the report of the Commissioner of Customs on
the basis of the test result available, the material was not fit for recycling. Our attention was
drawn by learned counsel for the importer to the test report of New Custom House Laboratory
which only show that ash contents were more and contention urged was that the conclusion
arrived by the Commissioner of Customs that the material was off specification and on account
of higher lead contents, it was not fit for recycling is without any basis. It was contended that the
test report of Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) was not on record an on that basis,
submission made is that the conclusion that the samples were tested at CRCL which showed that
lead contents exceeded the limits prescribed for re-refining was wholly untenable. On directions
of this Court, learned counsel for the Commissioner of Customs has filed before us a copy of the
report of CRCL which shown the lead MG/LIT being 2824.87. This high percentage of lead was
against the prescribed used oil specification for re-refining being 100 PPM. Further, from the
reply dated 7
th
May, 2004 sent to the show cause notice dated 13
th
April, 2004, the importer did
not ask for testing of oil to determine PCB contents. On the other hand, the stand in the said
reply is that if sample is tested after passage of four years, the nature of oil would have changed
considerably and the oil may have certain impurities and, therefore, the testing of oil will not be
an accurate method to ascertain the genuineness of the oil at the time it was imported. Even
before us, the submission is not that the sample should now be sent for testing. We do not think
that at this stage, the consignment can be allowed to be re-exported though agreed to by the
Monitoring Committee. It also cannot be allowed to be recycled. The oil deserves to be
incinerated.
In respect of import effected by Eleven Star Esscon, heavy metal concentrations are
within recycling limits. I does not have organic halides and PCBs. Recommendation of the
Commissioner of Customs is for its recycling. The Monitoring Committee has, however,
recommended its incineration possibly in view of its deterioration for about four years when the
consignment was lying at the port. The consignment has been confiscated absolutely. It is now
the Government’s property. Learned counsel for the importer Eleven Star Esscon has not
challenged the confiscation and has rather contended that his client has no intention to challenge
the same. In view of the finding that the heavy metals are within recycling limits’, there were no
organic halides and the PCBs and the consignment has been found to be fit for recycling, we feel
that the recycling deserves to be permitted as recommended by Commissioner of Customs but
the same shall be done under the supervision of the Monitoring Committee. Having so
permitted, we may note that the cost of recycling may be very exorbitant and it may be very
exorbitant and it may not be economically viable. If recycling is not considered advisable by the
Government, the consignment shall have to be destroyed by incineration in the same manner as
other consignments. The decision whether the Government desires the consignment to be
recycled shall be taken within a period of four weeks failing which the consignment shall be
destroyed by incineration along with other consignments. The cost of incineration shall be paid
by the Government.
According to the Monitoring Committee, the cost of incineration will be at the rate of Rs.
12/- per kilo which also include the cost of transport to be paid by the importers in advance.
| Page 11 |
The liability of the importers to pay the amounts to be spent for destroying the goods in
question cannot be doubted on applicability of precautionary principle and polluter pays
principle. These principles are part of the environment law of India. There is constitutional
mandate to protect and improve the environment. In order to fulfill the constitutional mandate
various legislations have been enacted with attempt to solve the problem of environmental
degradation.
In respect of the precautionary principle, Rio Declaration (Principle No.15) provides that
where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not
be used as reason for postponing cost effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.
This principle generally describes an approach to the protection of the environment or human
health based around precaution even where there is no clear evidence of harm or risk of harm
from an activity or substance. It is a part of principle of sustainable development, it provides for
taking protection against specific environmental hazards by avoiding or reducing environmental
risks before specific harms are experienced.
Having regard to the aforesaid principle, the import of waste oil containing PCBs of
detectable limit has been banned in India. The fact the PCBs content in the consignments was
only marginal or minimal and under Basel Convention its permissible limit is 50 PPM, is of no
consequence. Judging by Indian conditions, our law has provided the limit of PCBs which if of
detectable limits, the import is not allowed. The national law has to apply and shelter cannot be
taken under guidelines of Basel Convention.
The polluter pays principle basically means that the producer of goods or other items
should be responsible for the cost of preventing or dealing with any pollution that the process
causes. This includes environmental cost as well as direct cost to the people or property, it also
covers cost incurred in avoiding pollution and not just those related to remedying any damage. It
will include full environmental cost and not just those which are immediately tangible. The
principle also does not mean that the polluter can pollute and pay for it. The nature and extent of
cost and the circumstances in which the principle will apply may differ form case to case.
The observations in Deepak Nitrite Ltd. v. State of Gujarat and other [(2004) 6 SCC
402] that mere violation of the law in not observing the norms would result in degradation of
environment would not be correct’ is evidently confined to the facts of that case. In the said case
the fact that the industrial units had not conformed with the standards prescribed by the pollution
control board was not in dispute but there was not finding that the said circumstance had caused
damaged to environment. The decision also cannot be said to have laid down a proposition that
in absence of actual degradation of environment by the offending activities, the payment for
repair on application of the polluter pays principle cannot be ordered. The said case is not
relevant for considering the cases like the present one where offending activities has the potential
of degrading the environment. In any case, in the present case, the point simply is about the
payments to be made for the expenditure to be incurred for the destruction of imported
hazardous waste and amount spent for conducting tests for determining whether it is such a
waste or not. The law prescribes that on the detection of PCBs in the furnace or lubricating oil,
the same would come within the definition of hazardous waste. Apart from polluter pays
principle, support can also be had from principle 16 of the Rio Declaration, which provides that
| Page 12 |
national authorities should endeavor to promote the internalization of environmental costs and
the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in
principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interests and without distorting
international trade and investment.
Further, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the exemplary
and/or penal damages shall also be levied on the offending importers. In a given case, it may be
possible to levy such damages depending as well upon the nature and extent of offending
activity, the nature of offending party, the intention behind such activity but in the present case in
absence of clear finding on these aspects, it is unnecessary to examine this aspect in depth. It is,
however, to be borne in mind that in India the liability to pay compensation to affected persons is
strict and absolute and the rule laid down in Rylands V. Fletcher has been held to be not
applicable.
In M.C. Mehta and Anr. v. Union of India and Others [(1987) 1 SCC 395)] a
Constitution Bench has held that the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher laid down the principle of
liability that if a person who brings on to his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to
do harm and such thing escapes and does damage to another, he is liable to compensate for the
damage caused. This rule applies only to non-natural user of the land and it does not apply to
things naturally on the land or where the escape is due to an act of God and an act of a stranger
or the default of the person injured or where the thing which escapes is present by the consent of
the person injured or in certain cases where there is a statutory authority. This rule evolved in
the 19
th
century at a time when all the developments of science and technology had not taken
place cannot afford any guidance in evolving any standard of liability consistent with the
constitutional norms and the needs of the present day economy and social structure. In a modern
industrial society with highly developed scientific knowledge and technology where hazardous
or inherently dangerous industries are necessary to be carried on as part of the developmental
programme, court should not feel inhibited by this rule merely because the new law does not
recognize the rule strict and absolute liability in case of an enterprise engaged in hazardous and
dangerous activity. Law has to grow in order to satisfy the needs of the fast-changing society
and keep abreast with the economic developments taking place in the country. Law cannot
afford to remain static. The court cannot allow judicial thinking to be constricted by reference to
the law as it prevails in England or in any other foreign country. Though the court should be
prepared to receive light from whatever source it ‘comes but it has to build up its own
jurisprudence. It has to evolve new principles and lay down new norms which would adequately
deal with the new problems which arise in a highly industrialized economy. If its is found that it
is necessary to construct a new principle of liability to deal with an unusual situation which has
arisen and which is likely to arise in future on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous
industries which are concomitant to an industrial economy, the court should not hesitate to
evolve such principle of liability because it has not been so done in England. An enterprise
which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat
to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding
areas owes an absolute and non-delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results
to anyone. The enterprise must be held to be under an obligation to provide that the hazardous or
inherently dangerous activity in which it is engaged must be conducted with the highest
standards of safety and if any harm result to anyone on account of an accident in the operation of
such activity resulting, for example, in escape of toxic gas the enterprise is strictly and absolutely
| Page 13 |
liable to compensate all those who are affected by the accident as a part of the social cost for
carrying on such activity, regardless of whether it is carried on carefully or not. Such liability is
not subject to any of the exceptions which operate vis-a-vis the tortuous principle of strict
liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher. If the enterprise is permitted to carry on a
hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must presume that such
permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident arising on account
of such activity as an appropriate items of its overheads. The enterprise alone has the resource to
discover and guard against hazards or dangers and to provide warning against potential hazards.
The polluter pays principle was applied in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action and
Others v. Union of India and Others [(1996) 3 SCC 212] to fasten liability for defraying the
costs of remedial measures. The task of determining teh amount required for carrying out the
remedial measures, its recovery/realization and the task of undertaking the remedial measures
was placed in this case upon the Central Government. In the present case the approximate
expenditure to be incurred for destroying the hazardous waste has been mentioned in report.
In Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v. Union of India and Others [(1996) 5 SCC 647]
the precautionary principles and polluter pays principle were held to be part of the environmental
law of the country. It was held that the polluter pays principle means that the absolute liability
for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the
cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is
part of the damaged environment is part of the process of sustainable development.
In this very case, i.e., Research Foundation For Science Technology National
Resource Policy v. Union of India and Anr. [2003 (9) SCALE 303] while examining the
precautionary principle and polluter pays principle, the legal principles noticed in brief were :-
“The legal position regarding applicability of the precautionary principle and polluter
pays principle which are part of the concept of sustainable development in our country is now
well settled. In Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum v. Union of India and ors. [(1996) 5 SCC
647], a three judge bench of this court, after referring to the principles evolved in various
international conferences and to the concept, of “sustainable development.†inter alia, held that
the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle have now emerged and govern the law in
our country, as is clear from Articles 47, 48-A and 51- A (g) of our Constitution and that, in fact,
in the various environmental statutes including the Environment (Protection0 Act, 1986, these
concepts are already implied. These principles have held to have become part of our law.
Further, it was observed in Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forum’s case that these principles are
accepted as part of the customary international law and hence there should be no difficulty in
accepting them as part of our domestic law. Reference may also be made to the decision in the
case of A.P. Pollution Control Board Vs. Prof. M.V. Nayude (Retd.) and Ors. [(1996) 5 SCC
718] where, after referring to the principles noticed in Vellore Citizen’s Welfare Forums’s Case,
the same have been explained in more detail a view to enable the courts and the Tribunals or
environmental authorities to properly apply the said principles in the matters which come before
them. In this decision, it has also been observed that the principle, of good governance is an
accepted principle of international and domestic laws. It comprises of the rule of law, effective
State institutions, transparency and accountability and public affairs, respect for human rights
| Page 14 |
and the meaningful participation of citizens in the political process of their countries and in the
decisions affecting their lives. Reference has also been made to Article 7 of the draft approved
by the working group of the International Law Commission in 1996 on “Prevention of Tran
boundary Damage from Hazardous Activities†to include the need for the State to take necessary
“legislative, administrative and other actions†to implement the duty of prevention of
environmental harm. Environmental concerns have been placed at same pedestal as human
rights concerns, both being traced to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is the duty of this
court to render justice by taking all aspects into consideration. It has also been observed that
with a view to ensure that there is neither danger to the environment nor to the ecology and, at
the same time, ensuring sustainable development, the court can refer scientific and technical
aspects for an investigation and opinion to expert bodies. The provisions of a covenant which
elucidate and go to effectuate the fundamental rights guaranteed by our Constitution, can be
relied upon by Courts as facets of those fundamental rights and hence enforceable as such {see
People’s Union for Civil. Liberties Vs. Union of India and Anr. [(1997) 3 SCC 433]}. The
Basel Convention, it cannot be doubted, effectuates the fundamental rights guaranteed under
Article 21. The rights to information and community participation for protection of environment
and human health is also a right which flows from Article 21. The Government and authorities
have, thus to motivate the public participation. These well-shrined principles have been kept in
view by us while examining and determining various aspect and facets of the problems in issue
and the permissible remedies.â€
The aforenoted precautionary principles are fully applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case and we have no manner of doubt that the only appropriate course to
protect environments is to direct the destruction of the consignments by incineration in terms
discussed above and as recommended by the Monitoring Committee.
It seems that by disposal of the oil under the supervision of Monitoring Committee at the
incinerators which have adequate facilities to destroy the oil at a required temperature, there
would be no impact on environments.
In regard to 170 containers referred to in the report of the Commissioner of Customs
which are also lodged in the same premises in more or less same condition, the Monitoring
Committee has noted that these containers have not been claimed by the importers. The details
of the importers of these consignments are not on record. Before we issue directions in respect
of these 170 containers, it would be necessary to have on record the details of these imports. The
concerned authorities, i.e., Jawaharlal Nehru Port or Mumbai Port and all other concerned
Departments are directed to furnish to the Monitoring Committee within four weeks up to date
information as to the import of the 170 containers, how the consignment was dealt with right
from the date of the arrival till date. The Monitoring Committee shall file a report along with its
recommendations and on consideration thereof, necessary directions in regard to 170 containers
would be issued.
The aforesaid 133 containers are directed to be expeditiously destroyed by incineration as
per the recommendations of the Monitoring Committee and under its supervision subject to and
in terms of this order. The cost of incineration shall be deposited by the importers with the
Monitoring Committee within four weeks. The Monitoring Committee will ensure the timely
| Page 15 |
destruction of the oil at the incinerators mentioned in its report. After the destruction of the oil in
question, a compliance report shall be filed by the Monitoring Committee. All concerned are
directed to render full assistance and co-operation to the Monitoring Committee. In regard to the
consignment of Eleven Star Esscon, in case option for recycling is exercised by the Government,
the recycling would be done under the supervision of the Monitoring Committee. If the request
for recycling is not received by the Monitoring Committee within four weeks, the said
consignment would also be destroyed in the same manner as the other consignments.
…………………………….,J
[Y.K. Sabharwal]
Posted by customscoverup 