![]() Online edition of India's National Newspaper Saturday, Oct 06, 2007 ePaper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tamil Nadu |
|
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Tamil Nadu
-
Madurai
MADURAI: Importers may be entitled to disown a cargo under Customs Act, 1962 and Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 but that does not absolve them of the liability under the Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled. Justice V. Ramasubramanian passed the ruling while deciding a case pertaining to a dispute over disposing of 875 tonnes of “hazardous municipal waste,” which was part of 25,000 tonnes of waste paper imported by ITC Limited (paper boards division) from Evergreen Specialties of New Jersey, United States, in September 2005. Striking a comparison with the provisions of the Customs Act and Hazardous Waste Rules, the Judge said that they occupy two different fields. “Therefore, the absence of a statutory obligation under one of them cannot result in the obligation imposed by the other getting wiped out.” He pointed out that Section 62 of the Port Trusts Act empowered the port officials to sell abandoned cargo through public auction, tender or a private agreement after issuing notice to the owner. It further states that the officials could dispose of even hazardous goods abandoned by the importers. Similarly, Section 48 of the Customs Act states that the officials can sell the goods which are not cleared for home consumption, warehoused or transhipped within 30 days after being unloaded in the terminal. However, Rule 15 (3) of the Hazardous Waste Rules stipulates that trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste is illegal and that the exporter, importer and occupier were liable to ship it back or dispose it of in an environmentally sound manner. Section 48 should be understood as conferring a right and not as imposing an obligation upon the Customs department to sell abandoned goods. “A right conferred under a statute has always to be understood as distinguished from a liability imposed under a statute,” Mr. Justice Ramasubramanian said.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
![]()
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2007, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|