Waste Colonialism Rejected: Illegal Waste Imports Must Be Returned to the Country of Export

Case: Sripathi Paper and Boards Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors.
Court: Madras High Court (Madurai Bench)
Decision Date: 19 June 2026
Coram: Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy

Facts

The petitioners, manufacturers of paper products, imported consignments declared as waste paper for recycling. Upon inspection by the Customs Department and the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB), the consignments were found to contain municipal solid waste, including plastic containers, carry bags and other prohibited contaminants. The imports were consequently treated as illegal imports under the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, and the Basel Convention. The petitioners challenged the adjudication order directing re-export of the consignments to the country of export, and sought permission either to re-export the cargo to Dubai or to dispose of it within India. They also sought directions that Customs bear the detention and demurrage charges accumulated during adjudication.

Issues

1. -Whether illegally imported municipal solid waste could be re-exported to a third country (Dubai) instead of the exporting country?
2. -Whether the petitioners could be permitted to dispose of the prohibited waste within India?
3. -Whether Customs authorities were liable to bear detention, storage and demurrage charges incurred during adjudication?

Held

The High Court held that Article 9 of the Basel Convention and the Hazardous and Other Wastes Rules require illegally imported waste to be returned to the State of export, and not diverted to any third country. Permitting re-export to Dubai would violate India's treaty obligations and amount to facilitating another illegality. The relevant part is as below:

70. There is yet another reason why the contention advanced by the petitioners cannot be accepted. The Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016, have been framed in furtherance of India's international obligations arising under the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (effective from 05.05.1992). The provisions of the Rules, therefore, have to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the objectives and obligations embodied in the Convention.

…

79. Therefore, upon a conjoint reading of the provisions of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and the obligations flowing from the Basel Convention, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners' request to re-export the consignments to Dubai is legally untenable and cannot be countenanced. One illegality cannot be rectified by facilitating another. Accordingly, the prayer seeking permission to re-export the consignments to Dubai stands rejected.

Rejecting the plea to dispose of the waste within India, the Court observed that India's statutory framework seeks to prevent the country from becoming a dumping ground for foreign waste. It held that allowing disposal of imported municipal solid waste within India would be contrary to the Hazardous and Other Wastes Rules, the Basel Convention, public policy, environmental justice and the constitutional duty to protect the environment. The Court described such practices as "waste colonialism" and emphasised that developed countries cannot externalise their environmental burden onto developing nations. The relevant portion is as below:

“75. 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 High Court also observed that illegal import of foreign waste is a direct challenge to India's sovereignty, amounts to a grave form of ‘deshdroh’(treason). The relevant portion is mentioned below:

“101. 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 High Court also directed that the illegal waste be sent back to the exporting country:

“69. In the present case, the adjudicating authority has recorded a categorical finding that the petitioners had imported consignments containing municipal solid waste under the guise of waste paper. The finding is that the petitioners had knowingly attempted to bring into India consignments containing prohibited waste material. When the entities from the countries of origin and the petitioners have jointly made an attempt to dispose of solid municipal waste, having regard to the nature of the violation, it is the bounden obligation of the petitioners and every one to ensure that the waste reaches back to the place of origin and the offending consignments are sent back to the countries of origin,namely, Canada and the United States of America, from where they were exported.

…

73. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it abundantly clear that, in cases of illegal traffic, the waste is required to be taken back by or returned to the State of export and not diverted to any third country. The obligation contemplated under the Convention as well as the domestic Rules framed thereunder is one of restitution to the exporting State, thereby ensuring that responsibility for the unlawful transboundary movement of waste remains with the exporter and the State of export.

…

94. In view of the above, this issue is answered by holding that the petitioners shall be liable to pay the freight charges as well as the sum of Rs.4,00,00,000/- agreed to be paid to the liner, namely, M/s.Maersk Line India Pvt. Ltd. on the conditions that are imposed by the Memo. In any event, the non- payment cannot be ground to retain the goods in India. The freight charges back to the port of destination has to be mandatorily paid by the petitioners.”

The High Court hence dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the adjudication order.

The judgment reinforces India's strict obligations under the Basel Convention and the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 by holding that illegally imported municipal solid waste must be returned only to the exporting country. It firmly rejects attempts to divert such waste to third countries or dispose of it within India, characterising such practices as "waste colonialism" and affirming that India cannot be converted into a global waste disposal destination.

Access Case Here.