“If any person knowingly designs, imports, or aids in importing and throws trash on Bharath Matha, it is not just an offence under the Environment Protection Act, 1985 alone, but it is a direct challenge to her sovereignty. There cannot be a more aggravated form of deshdroh. When the right to life and self esteem of every citizen of the Country, living organism and eco systems is involved, certainly it is an act endangering sovereignty,” the court said.

Talking about “waste colonialism”, Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy held that when developed countries dump solid municipal waste to developing countries, it not only violates international treaty obligations but also results in serious environmental degradation.

“The phenomenon, often described as "waste colonialism", refers to the practice whereby developed countries, either directly or through unscrupulous exporters, seek to shift the burden of disposal of hazardous, toxic or other undesirable waste to developing nations, thereby externalising the environmental and social costs associated with such waste. Such practices not only undermine environmental justice but also pose a serious threat to the ecological security and public health of the receiving countries. Above all, it is a direct affront on the very sovereignty of the country and as such rightly terms as 'colonialism',” the court observed.

The court was hearing a plea filed by two paper companies seeking to quash an Order-in-Original issued against them by the Customs Department and to permit re-export of goods to Dubai. Alternatively, the companies had sought permission to dispose the goods in India for recycling.

Both companies were engaged in the manufacture of paper and imported large quantities of waste paper from various countries under the authorisation of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2016.

The companies had placed an order with a company based in Canada. However, when the goods arrived in India, the Deputy Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, inspected the import and found that the same was in contravention of the Customs Act, as the consignment carried municipal waste PET bottles, street sweepings, waste food paper and plastic parcels, broken glass bottles, waste plastic and paper containers, and used soft-drink cans.

Since the import of municipal waste was not permitted under law, it was detained and action was initiated against the companies. The companies were asked to re-export the goods. Citing long pendency of proceedings, the companies requested to waive demurrage and detention charges from the date of detention. The companies also sought permission to re-export the cargo to Dubai, instead of Canada. In the alternative, the companies also sought to dispose the goods within India through recycling in accordance with applicable statutory framework.

The authorities, on the other hand, argued that the orders were passed after giving due opportunities to the companies. It was argued that in case of illegal import of hazardous and other waste, the importer shall re-export the waste at its own cost within ninety days of its arrival in India. Relying on various judicial pronouncements, the authorities also argued that the statutory framework had to be strictly implied.

It was also submitted that on previous occasion, when an attempt was made to reroute consignment to Dubai, the authorities in Dubai had declined to accept the goods. It was argued that in such circumstance, permitting the reexport would neither be proper nor justified.

The Union of India also informed the court that it would make every endeavour to take up the issue with authorities of respective exporting countries through appropriate channels.

With respect to the validity of the orders-in-original, the court held that the companies and their representatives had accepted the findings and had merely sought lenience. The court also noted that the authorities had taken a lenient approach and imposed modest penalty. The court also noted that the companies had not appealed against the order as per the Act and allowed it to attain finality. Thus, the court observed that the belated challenge to the orders-in-original could not be countenanced.

The court also noted that the authorities had issued a detailed show cause notices, and there was no infirmity, procedural irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference with the order.

With respect to exporting the consignment to Dubai, the court held that Rule 15(2) of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules clearly used the word re-export which would show that the consignment could not be sent to any third country of importer's choice.

The court thus directed the paper companies to take necessary steps to re-export the goods and ensure that the same is re-exported within a period of 60 days. The court also said that the container freight stations would be entitled to raise invoices and demand detention/demurrage charges from the companies and the company would be liable to pay the same.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Hari Radhakrishnan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. R. Gowri Shankar Senior Standing Counsel, Ms. Madhuri Donti Reddy, Mr. P. Giridharan, Mr. K. Govindarajan Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. S. Meenakshi Sundaram

Case Title: M/s. Sripathi Paper and Boards Private Limited v The Commissioner of Customs and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 301

Case No: W.P.(MD)Nos.24097, 24098, 24099, 24101, 24102, 24103 and 24104 of 2024