India as a dumping ground

Published on May 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 44 | Comments: 0 | Views: 186
of 69
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1|Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Traditional waste including paper, metal, plastic and virtually all other materials are recycled to a great extent in India. In fact ,the recycling industry has emerged as a multi –billion-rupee business , with thousands of recycling units having come up across the county, employing millions of people .Hundreds of thousands of poor people in cities are involved in gathering waste, separating them and recycling parts for use. In the municipal dumping ground around big cities and Mumbai and Delhi, one can see hundreds of teenagers rummaging through the garbing, searching for all kinds of materials that they salvage and sell to scrap-dealer. Thousands of old landfills and dumpsites exist throughout the developing Countries representing a threat for human health for the next decades, unless appropriate Measures are taken. Landfill mining, involving the excavation, screening and separation of Material from landfills into various components including soil, recyclable materials and residues is central to the sustainable approach to prolong the landfill life and to remediate contamination from unlined open dumps. The focus of this paper is on the concept and utility of landfill mining as a key part of sustainable landfill management especially for the rehabilitation of the municipal solid waste dumpsites in developing countries. The paper would discuss the findings of the studies on mining of decomposed materials from the dumpsites at Kodungaiyur and Perungudi, near Chennai and compare with the results of similar studies in Deonar, near Mumbai in India, Europe and US.

2|Page

OBJECTIVE

3|Page

OBJECTIVE

Hazardous wastes of industrialized countries are being transported to India for the purpose of dumping, in the name of recycling. It is for the simple reason having their own country clean and green but also the cost of doing it themselves is very high. But its consequences are severe and adversely affects developing country which are themselves grappling with their own waste. It gives birth to unknown diseases which are the cause of early deaths to those who are associated with this. Lack of infrastructure facility makes it worse to manage the import of waste products to India. This research paper provides an idea on how these negative activities affects the direct and indirect economy of the country. Though the country is also benefited to a certain extent as the poor people gets employment but it has the hazardous effects which are making India hollow from inside.

4|Page

HYPOTHESIS

5|Page

HYPOTHESIS

India is repetitively known as a dumping ground for developed countries. Though, many policies have been made to stop this hazardous game of life. Government of India has also banned the import of waste material to India, but still many rich countries export their wastages to Asian countries illegally, especially India. It affects our country adversely in all respect. It is been shown in this paper by giving certain articles related to this serious problem and the amendment which is been done in recent years.

6|Page

INTRODUCTION

7|Page

INTRODUCTION

Times now (6 March 2010): twenty containers with goods were detained by the officials of special intelligence and investigation branch attached to the customs department. Investigations revealed that the consignment in 11 containers was imported from Greece and nine more containers from reunion, one of the colonies of France, by a firm in sivakasi, virudhunagar district. The goods in all, totally weighing about 470 tonner, were declared as waste paper, municipal waste, medical waste and plastic waste. Packs of broken toys, used diapers, empty perfume bottles, used battery cells, thermocol, used aluminium foil packing materials and coloured surgical gloves were also found in the containers. These news headlines is one of many being flashed across leading daily‟s across the country. INDIA, along with many other developing countries In Asia and Africa, has in recent years emerged as a dumping ground for hazardous and toxic waste that some of the richer countries are loathe to dispose of in their lands for environmental and safety reasons, and to avoid the huge costs in setting up special incinerators. But recycling hazardous waste is a different issue altogether. Environmentalists and health activists have been highlighting the dangers of workers getting exposed to toxic fumes while dismantling products ranging from television sets, computers, refrigerators, mobile phones and other electronic goods to even ships. In the past, unscrupulous buyers in India would stealthily „import‟ such waste and spirit away to dumping grounds, where worker would dismantle the goods and salvage metals and other recyclable materials. In

8|Page

the absence of regulation, it was easy to hoodwink customs and other officials and smuggle in huge quantities of such waste. However, growing international concerns about dumping of hazardous waste into the country has woken up the authorities to the potential environmental and health dangers. Even the courts have begun intervening, directing governments to tighten up the norms to prevent the dumping of waste. Worryingly, the growing consumerist culture in India and the information technology and telecommunication revolution underway have further accelerated the problem of dumping of hazardous waste. Though India‟s desktop and laptop market is insignificant in comparison with other leading countries, it has emerged as the fastest-growing market for mobile phones, with nearly 20 million new subscribers being added in January alone.

9|Page

INDIAN DUMPING GROUND FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE OIL

10 | P a g e

INDIAN DUMPING GROUND FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE OIL

Culprit: United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iran Description: 168 containers of waste oil were oil were illegally imported via the Nhava Sheva container terminal near Mumbai. The oil was imported after being invoiced as “furnace oil” when in fact it was highly toxic recycled oil waste. The import of waste oils into India is prohibited by a May 1997 Supreme court order. In November 1997, Greenpeace had exposed a stpckpile of illegally imported toxic wastes, including 28 containers of waste oil, lying in the Tughlaqabad Inland Container Depot near Delhi. Effects: Waste oil contains cancer-causing chemicals and can contaminate the environment in such a way that poison travels through the food chain affecting various living organisms, including humans. These oils contain mixtures of hydrocarbons and water, emulsion and other toxic substances as they are subjected to different process and several chemical are extracted. However, the entire quantity is never fully reused and hazardous by products are generated.

11 | P a g e

INDIA DUMPING GROUND FOR WORLD MERCURY

12 | P a g e

INDIA DUMPING GROUND FOR WORLD MERCURY

World is phasing out mercury because of public health concerns-India was in fact becoming a dumping ground for the world‟s mercury. While it is known that mercury is highly toxic, its compound, methyl mercury, is a confirmed neuron-toxicant damaging the developing brain. It is also geno-toxic as mercury is known to pass through the placental barrier and the blood-brain barrier, putting the unborn at tremendous risk. The global production of mercury is on the decline and its use in most countries is severely restricted or banned. But the world needs a “market” and India has become a willing buyer of this deadly product. Europe, for instance, has decided to phase out all its mercury –based chloral –alkali plants. It has over 13,000-18,000 tones of mercury that it will discard on the market. The US has excess mercury stocks. In the last seven years, Europe has sold over 3,000 tonnes of this toxin to India, as per CSE report. Mercury imports to India have more than doubled between 1996 and 2002 from 254 tonnes per annum to 531 tonnes per annum. India has now displaced the US as the biggest consumer of mercury. It consumers 50 per cent of the global production and processes 69 per cent of mercury. Mercury, the only liquid among metals, is a deadly nerve poison and is known to be a global pollutant as is carried all over the world by wind and rain. The metal does not break down and accumulates in the fat of animals and keeps on moving up the food chain. Exposure to mercury

13 | P a g e

could potentially inflict irreparable damage to the human brain, spinal cord, kidneys and liver. Mercury and mercury containing wastes are included in the waste streams of the Basel Convention on trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste and their disposal. In order to control the movement of Basel wastes, the export and import of mercury bearing wastes has been banned under Schedule 8 of the Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Amendment Rules, 2003. But elemental mercury containing equipment are continued to be freely imported. The Indian chloral-alkali producers have announced plans to phase out their remaining mercury facilities by 2012. India is now the second largest user of mercury in the world (170-190 tonnes a year) after the US (372 tonnes). Total imports of mercury and mercury compounds have jumped to 1,858 tonnes. A collation of sporadic studies shows it is the coastal areas that are at maximum risk. In Mumbai, Kolkata, Kochi, Karwar, Chennai and the north Koel River in Bihar, high levels of mercury have been found in fish. According to available data studied by the CSE, only about 0.2% of the mercury used in the country is regulated. That means that 99% remains completely unregulated. There is no information on how almost 90% of the imported mercury is used in India.

14 | P a g e

INDIA DUMPING GROUND OF THE MILLENNIUM

15 | P a g e

INDIA DUMPING GROUND OF THE MILLENIUM

Most Indians are well aware of the fact that their country is on the brink of environmental disaster as pollution, lack of waste disposal infrastructure, rapid industrialization and the ever burgeoning

paucity of space combine together in a vicious circle that has the country hurtling towards ruination. But many Indians are provided woefully inadequate information about an even more sinister and deadly threat that poses a vivid and real danger to their lives and the lives of their future generations. The generally shrill Indian media is shockingly muted and understated when it comes to describing an environmental danger that is bringing India alarmingly close to the threshold of ecological disaster. That threat stems from the role of nations such as the USA, Australia, European Union, Canada and the Arab States in treating India as the dumping ground for all forms, and manner of extremely hazardous toxic waste.

The Indian Ministry of Environment's is the first and foremost culprit which must bear the blame for having transformed India over the years into the world's biggest toxic waste dump. Through their inaction and attempts to dilute the Supreme Court order by seeking entry of selected hazardous wastes, the government of India has brought India and many of its people to the brink of environmental disaster. And this isn't a new phenomenon either, the practice of dumping illegal and hazardous materials in India, has been happening since the 1970's. Sad to say, the practice still continues even as the year 2001 has come along, a situation which highlights the mockery of the ban on toxic waste imports which was imposed by the
16 | P a g e

Indian Supreme Court in 1997. This article lists some of the most recent incidences of this horrifying new reality and explores some of the most troubling consequences.

17 | P a g e

INDIAN DUMPING GROUND FOR DEFECTIVE AND DANGEROUS JUNK STEEL AND TIN PLATES

18 | P a g e

INDIAN DUMPING GROUND FOR DEFECTIVE AND DANGEROUS JUNK STEEL AND TIN PLATES:

Culprit: European Union, United States of America, Australia Description: Close to 90 per cent of the tin plates imported to India are comprised of seconds and defectives. A part of this consignment is even categorized as “tin plate waste.” The truth is that defectives and seconds are not even mentioned in the WTO list. In the case of regular steel goods such as hot rolled coils, even founding members of the WTO, such as the USA, have higher tariff barriers than India. Effects: The import of these defective goods has the potential of being a health hazard since tin plates are widely used in the manufacture of containers for baby food and edible oils. Defective tin plates are more easily prone to rust and corrosion as a result of which it is dangerous to pack food items in them. It is for this reason that the sale of such goods is not allowed in the western countries. According to industry sources, the damage being done is three-fold. The flood of cheap imports depresses prices for the domestic industry which is just showing signs of recovery. In addition, the defective item threatens Indian consumers. There imported defective cold rolled steel coils are being used in the manufacture of refrigerators, automobiles, auto components and electrical good. Consumer good using these defective components face an increased risk of exposure to short-circuits, electrical fires and leakage of toxins such as inert gases and gasoline.

19 | P a g e

INDIA DUMPING GROUND FOR DEADLY ASBESTOS

20 | P a g e

INDIA DUMPING GROUND FOR DEADLY ASBESTOS

Culprit: Canada Description: the asbestos industry in India is spread over in about 15 states-nearly 60 per cent of these industries are in operation. Seventy per cent of asbestos is imported from Canada. In Canada, mining is done in a highly mechanized way. These are then sent to India for final finishing. The finished products are packaged and sent abroad with signs saying that it is a hazardous product. But when the raw material is sent to India, no precautions are taken. The global trend has been to either restrict or ban its use, but the Canadian Government continues to resist the move to ben asbestos. It exports asbestos to primarily developing countries such as India. Seven of Canada‟s top markets are in developing countries. Effects: Exposure to asbestos particles can lead to many diseases. Some diseases are malignant or cancerous, such as mesothelioma and lung cancer. Others are non-malignant, such as asbestosis, pleural plaques, diffuse pleural fibrosis, and benign pleural effusions.

21 | P a g e

INDIAN DUMPING GROUND FOR TOXIC USED PLASTIC

22 | P a g e

INDIAN DUMPING GROUND FOR TOXIC USED PLASTIC

Culprit: United Sates of America Description: Pepsi co is involved in both producing and disposing of plastic waste in India. Under Pepsi‟s two-part scheme, plastic for singleuse disposal bottles is manufactured in India and exported to the United States Europe, while the toxic by-products of the plastic production process stay in India. Used plastic bottles are then returned from these countries to poison India‟s people and environment again. India bears the burden of environmental and health impact from plastic production and plastic waste, while consumers in industrialized countries continue using and disposing of massive quantities of unsustainable and unnecessary beverage packaging without absorbing the true costs-financial, health and environmental. In short, India gets shafted at both ends, while industrialized country consumers receive all the benefits. It is estimated that 60 to 70 per cent of the waste can be processed, but the rest is either too contaminated with residual materials or other garbage that arrives mixed in with the shipment, or is the wrong type of plastic. Workers in these factories are provided no protective clothing guard against painful hot –water washing, inhaling fumes or other exposure to contaminated plastics. Effects: The major chemicals used to make plastic resins pose serious risks to public health and safety. Many of the chemicals used in large volumes to produce plastic are highly toxic. Some chemicals, like benzene and vinyl chloride, are known to cause cancer in humans; many
23 | P a g e

tend to be gases and liquid hydrocarbons which readily vaporize and pollute the air. Many are flammable and explosive. Even the plastic resins themselves are flammable and have contributed to numerous chemical accidents. The production of plastic emits substantial amounts of toxic chemicals (e.g., ethylene oxide, benzene and xylenes) to air and water. Many of the toxic chemicals released in plastic production can cause cancer and birth defects and damage the nervous system, blood, kidneys and immune systems. These chemicals can also cause serious damage to ecosystem. Some of the harmful effects of plastic recycling include skin and respiratory problems resulting from exposure to or inhalation of toxic fumes, especially hydrocarbons, and residues released during recycling processes.

24 | P a g e

INDIA DUMPING GROUND FOR E-WASTE

25 | P a g e

INDIA DUMPING GROUND FOR E-WASTE

According to a UN report, India is the second largest e-waste generator in Asia. The UN study says that by 2020, e-wastes from old computer would jump by 500% from the 2007 levels in India and by 200% to 400% in south Africa and China and eighteen times higher in India. A recent report by the Delhi based Centre for science and Environment (CSE) says that apart from generating about 3, 50,000 tones of electronic waste every year, India imports another 50,000 tones. As per the data, India generated 3, 30,000 tones of e-waste in 2007 which is equal to 110 mn laptops. About 10% of the e-waste generated is recycled every year; the remaining is refurbished, and the unorganized sector is right behind almost all of it. The study alleges that the unorganized sector recycles more than 90% of this; and instead of organizing this sector, government chooses to ignore it. Almost all of this waste is recycled or scrapped by the unorganized sector, using the most rudimentary methods that pollute. It is being reported that the free trade agreement currently being negotiated with the European Union and Japan, which include provisions for these countries to go around the restriction on movement of e-waste. According to CSE, the cause for concern is the part of the draft text of an FTA between the EU and India, which was leaked. This leaked text coins a new name for waste: it says “non-new goods shall be understood to include notably used and remanufactured goods” and that “non-new goods” would not have any restriction such as import or export tariffs. Thus, import of waste could be treated just like import of fresh products.
26 | P a g e

Everyone is so lost in the urban rat race that we all have forgotten the world around us. We never stop and think about what we are giving back to the earth other than the increased carbon footprints and e-wastes. We have all the bad things to highlight if we start analysing from carbon emissions to e-wastes.

27 | P a g e

INDIA DUMPING GROUND FOR SHIP DISMANTLING

28 | P a g e

INDIA DUMPING GROUND FOR SHIP DISMANTLING

India is getting hazardous chemical-loaded ships for dismantling from obscure countries such as Comoros, a small island nation in Indian Ocean. But scratch the surface and it appears that these small countries are a front for rich nations to send their dirty cargo ships to India. The poor countries come handy for countries like Germany and Greece to circumvent international laws. The catch being that international laws prevent „the rich‟ from shipping their hazardous waste directly to India. „The poor‟ are not barred from dealing in this lucrative international scrap trade with another „poor country‟. On record, India has got ships from countries like Bermuda, Panama and even land-locked Mongolia to dismantle at Asia‟s biggest ship breaking yard, Alang. The latest in the list is the “Al Arabia” alias “Beni Ansar” alias “Aquaba Express” that beached at India in October 2007 despite warnings from the UN Environmental programme that the ship was being illegally taken to India. The ship came carrying the flag of the obscure Comoros Island. ”Al Arabia” is just one example of the modus operandi the rich OECD countries use to circumvent the international Basel Convention and their own strict environmental laws. The convention bans any movement of hazardous waste from the developed countries to developing countries without prior consent. Ship owner from rich countries instead find the convenient route out by buying a „flag of convenience‟ for their discarded ship by registering them in countries like Liberia, St Vincent, Grena –dines, landlocked Mongolia and Tuvalu, which make a quick buck in return. The ships then sail off to the breaking yards in countries like India.
29 | P a g e

Even the radioactive material-carrying “Blue Lady” alias “SS Norway” was sold to an India company through a company based in Monrovia, Liberia-more known for its trade in blood diamonds. The “Blue Lady” was more than a 2,000 plus capacity luxury cruise liner run by the world famous star cruise Limited. But after it became unusable, it shipped through various countries before being „officially‟ sold to a company based in Liberia for a mere US $ 10. Sailing under the Liberian flag, it was sold to an Indian company helping the original owners circumvent the Basel Convention. Liability can arise out of the dangerous chemicals that they come laden with without notice decontaminating which has got Alang one of the worst labour accident records in the world. The “Al Arabia”, still beached in Alang, contains hazardous substances like asbestos and cancer causing polychlorinated biphenyls or PCB that take very long to decompose in the environment. The flags of convenience are a big issue in the shipping industry and the government is finding it tough to tackle. In fact, there are several ships that have got wrecked off the coast of India over the past years that the government cannot trace the owners of these ships. Ship dismantling is another form of Tran‟s frontier waste that is shipped from country to country. Many ships are broken down into parts that can be recycled. Many parts of the ships are hazardous and can potentially pollute the areas that they are broken down in. The ship parts can contain asbestos, PCBs, and oil sludge. All of these components can be a potential health risk and harm the environment. Most ship scrapping industries are in developing countries where the laws (environmentally as well as occupationally) are not as strict as in developed countries. International Maritime Organization states that India is the leader in ship dismantling, followed by China, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. The aircraft
30 | P a g e

carrier Clemenceau was denied access to Indian waters because it contained asbestos. The French aircraft was carried from France to Britain to be recycled on February 8, 2009 despite the abundance of asbestos. The EU Commission proposed improvements to be made to improve the ship dismantling as well as the ocean dumping process on November 19, 2008. These improvements were deemed necessary after the dumping incident on Ivory Coast in 2006. One major improvement would be to provide facilities designed to break down ship parts safely for recycling mostly in regions of South Asia. The Ship Recycling Convention will not decide on the improvements until May 2009. If the new improvements for making ship dismantling safer for the areas and workers who dismantle the parts are agreed upon at the convention, it would take years before it became international law.

31 | P a g e

INDIA A DUMPING GROUND FOR TOXIC SHIPS

32 | P a g e

INDIA A DUMPING GROUND FOR TOXIC SHIPS

After being banned in Bangladesh, a toxic-laden ship, Probo Koala, is headed towards Indian shores for dismantling, a global group of activists called 'NGO Shipbreaking Platform' has warned. The ship, a 1989-built oil carrier cargo vessel weighing 31,255 tonnes now named Gulf Jash, was banned from entering Bangladesh waters recently after environmentalists in neighbouring countries warned the government about it. The ship has been in the thick of controversy in Africa and Europe. Its previous owner, a company called Trafigura, tried to offload its on-board toxic material in Amsterdam. It was detected in time and when the authorities imposed heavy charges for proper disposal, the company decided to instead send the ship to Africa. After trying its luck in Nigeria, the company finally found a dealer in Ivory Coast to dump the chemicals off board. Hundreds of tonnes of toxic chemicals were poured into the country's largest city, Abidjan. NGO Shipbreaking Platform said the toxic dumps lead to the death of 16 people and thousands of people falling ill. The company had to reportedly settle cases out of court by paying out 30 million pounds to the victims and nearly 100 million pounds to the Ivory Coast government for clean-up though the company never officially accepted blame. The ship, environmentalists warn contains many tonnes of hazardous asbestos, PCBs, toxic paints, fuel and chemical residues which have not
33 | P a g e

been cleaned up before sending the ship for breaking down. Activists have been demanding for years that ships owned by companies in the developed world should be rid of all toxic material before being sent to shipyards in poorer countries. But the global shipping companies vary of the costs involved; have preferred not to do so on several occasions. While the Basel Convention, an international treaty, prevents rich countries from transporting hazardous waste and chemicals to developing countries without prior information, the shipping firms and those in the market for dismantling old ships get around the treaty quite easily. The ships are registered in developing countries under shell companies carrying what are called 'flags of convenience' which permit them to bypass the treaty. The Probo Koala is registered in Panama. The last confirmed owner of the ship was a group called GMS, which has faced charges of trying to smuggle out another dirty ship in the US. The ship, Oceanic, finally reached India for breaking. GMS also made an out of court settlement with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and paid more than half a million dollars. India has also faced two high profile cases -- those of Clemenceau and Blue Lady -- though the shipyards at Alang continue to break hundreds of ships even after that. Besides India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and increasingly China have become the world's junkyards for retired ships. In developed countries, laws and the costs involved make dismantling ships a prohibitive exercise. The low cost of labour, lax standards and even worse monitoring has made South Asia a ship-breaking hub. An added attraction is the steel taken out of these ships, which come in handy for the insatiable markets in Asia.
34 | P a g e

CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS

35 | P a g e

CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS

On paper, India has banned the import of hazardous waste meant for disposal. The first set of rules regulating such imports was put in place in 1989. The rules have been amended twice since then – the latest as recent as last March. Yet waste matter – from medical discard to industrial litter – continues to heap up in India. We fail to understand why India has to import waste when it is not in a position to take care of the waste generated domestically. Moreover, some imports have grown more than 10 times in the last four years. India imported 133 tons of municipal waste ash in 2005-2006 and 1,427 tons in 2008-2009. “This ash is a concentrated toxic cocktail” says Gopal Krishna, an activist at the non- Government Toxics Watch Alliance, Delhi. The real problem is the nexus between official and dubious operators in the waste trade. Ramapathy Kumar, campaigner for Greenpeace India, says that the Government gives to the issue can be gauged from the fact that it seldom cheeks the seriousness that the Government gives to the issue can be gauged from the fact that it seldom checks the antecedents of these fly-night importers. “One can get an import license here for Rs 5,000 and more often than not importers use the license just for one consignment.” They make their money, and the next time they want to import waste they seek a fresh license. “Invariably, fake addresses are given in the document which are hardly ever scrutinised,” says Kumar. None of the 12 centrally owned ports, with the exception of Jawaharlal Nehru (JN) port, near Mumbai, have scanners capable of
36 | P a g e

detecting arms, ammunition and radioactive substances in containerized cargo imported into India. These 12 ports account for three-fourths of India‟s external trade shipped by sea. Only 10% of containers imported through JN port are scanned, chosen at random. Indeed, India allows a large number of metal and non-metal wastes for reprocessing materials such as steel and copper. This, the Government argues, helps the country reduce its dependence on natural resources and offers a livelihood to millions. On the other hand, civil society organisations have been advocating a complete ban on the import of hazardous waste, even if they are of material value. They argue that rich nation have been using India as a dump yard for their toxic waste. Moreover, India does not have the technical expertise to recycle toxic waste material. The import of hazardous waste into India for disposal has been banned by the Supreme Court of India in 1997. Further, according to the Basel Convention, the trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste from OECD to non-OECD countries for disposal or recovery is banned. Additionally, according to Para 2.17 of the EXIM policy, 2002-07, Import of Second hand goods is only permitted with the permission of the Director General of Foreign Trade. Import of e-waste is also restricted as a part of List-A and List-B of schedule- 3 of the hazardous waste (Management & Handling) Rules 1989, as amended in 2003 under the Environment Protection Act. The import of such goods requires the specific permission of the ministry of Environment and Forest. Union Environment and Forest Ministry that is the nodal agency for import and country. But it isn‟t only about account-keeping; the issue is more than that of misrepresentation. In India hazardous waste is often

37 | P a g e

renamed as recyclable metal scrap and put back into the market without giving a serious thought to damage that it can cause. That‟s on the ground. In circles that look down upon such waste, India plays a different role. It has signed and ratified the Basel Convention, which regulates the movement of hazardous waste between nations. It, however, has not signed a 1995 amendment (called BAN) which prohibits the movement of hazardous waste from developed countries to developing countries.

38 | P a g e

TAX LEVIED

39 | P a g e

TAX LEVIED

(Difference between Anti-Dumping Duty and Normal Customs Duty) Although anti-dumping duty is levied and collected by the Customs Authorities, it is entirely different from the Customs duties not only in concept and substance, but also in purpose and operation. The following are the main differences between the two: Conceptually, anti-dumping and the like measures in their essence are linked to the notion of fair trade. The object of these duties is to guard against the situation arising out of unfair trade practices while customs duties are there as a means of raising revenue and for overall development of the economy. Customs duties fall in the realm of trade and fiscal policies of the Government while anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures are there as trade remedial measures. The object of anti-dumping and allied duties is to offset the injurious effect of international price discrimination while customs duties have implications for the government revenue and for overall development of the economy. Anti-dumping duties are not necessarily in the nature of a tax measure inasmuch as the Authority is empowered to suspend these duties in case of an exporter offering a price undertaking. Thus such measures are not always in the form of duties/tax. Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties are levied against exporter / country inasmuch as they are country specific and exporter specific as
40 | P a g e

against the customs duties which are general and universally applicable to all imports irrespective of the country of origin and the exporter. Thus, there are basic conceptual and operational differences between the customs duty and the anti-dumping duty. The anti-dumping duty is levied over and above the normal customs duty chargeable on the import of goods in question.

41 | P a g e

IMPOSITION OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTY-A TRADE PROTECTION MEASURE

42 | P a g e

IMPOSITION OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTY-A TRADE PROTECTION MEASURE

Anti-dumping investigations are no longer a strange phenomenon for most of the importers, exporters or producers. They are being increasingly subjected to such investigations by the authorities‟ concerned. The history of anti-dumping duties dates back to many decades ago, even prior to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), Canada for the first time applied anti-dumping duties early in the last century. In due course, other countries adopted this measure against price discrimination. A provision for imposition of company and product specific duties was thereafter incorporated in the year 1947 when the GATT was drafted. Today, anti-dumping measures have become one of the most favoured non-tariff measures to protect the interest of domestic industry in certain specified circumstances for most of the WTO Members. Dumping is said to occur when the export price of any product is less than the comparable price of a like product in the domestic market of the exporting Member. For a fair comparison of export price with normal value, the sale in the home market needs to be in the ordinary course of trade and should at least be five percent of the quantity sold to the importing Member. Imposition of anti-dumping duties has an important bearing on the trading decisions. While anti-dumping duties, levied provisionally or finally, definitely make the imports costlier from such sources, even a mere initiation of investigation against certain exporters scares the importers away from those exporters to other sources. It may be argued
43 | P a g e

that exporters resorting to dumping practices and causing injury to domestic producers in the importing country need to be disapproved. It may, however, also be argued equally well that the domestic producers need not be given undue protection. The investigating authorities, therefore, have a delicate job to perform by balancing the interests of exporters, domestic producers and the consumers. One of the basic questions that need to be answered in this context is why at all exporters resort to dumping. Dumping obviously means sending goods at cheaper prices, which is against the general business principle of maximizing the profits. Exporters may be compelled to change different prices in different markets for various reasons. When they charge lower prices in foreign markets as compared to prices in the domestic market it is considered to be dumping in the context of the Agreement on Anti-dumping. Since no one in the business may be expected to sell at a loss over a substantial period of time, one may sell at lower prices in the foreign market only at the cost of higher prices in the domestic market i.e. by cross subsidising the foreign market sales or one may resort to such practices for capturing the foreign markets with the ultimate intention of monopolizing the same. It may also be a result of a desire to maximize sales by pushing goods even at prices which provide only for a marginal profit over the variable costs but do not provide adequately for the recovery of all costs, particularly the fixed costs. There may be other external reasons too for dumping, for example, compulsion to bring prices in line with the prices prevailing in the importing country. Generally speaking countries having advantage of geographical nearness or having the advantage of their goods being treated with preferential tariffs or exchange rate advantages may be able to supply goods at prices cheaper than other exporters. Importers would, however,
44 | P a g e

expect all supplies to be made at the cheapest of such prices which may also be the trendsetter and this may compel the other exporters would need to compress its prices would depend upon the extent of disadvantage it suffers. Neither Article VI of GATT 1994 nor the Agreement in Antidumping, however, disapproves of dumping per se. Dumping is to be condemned only if it causes or threatens to cause material injury to a domestic industry in the importing country or materially retards the establishment of a domestic industry. The fundamental objective of antidumping measures, therefore, is to remove the injurious effects of dumping. It is in this view of the matter that while the Agreement on Anti-dumping permits levy of full dumping margin as anti-dumping duty, it recommends imposition of a lesser amount as duty, if that lesser amount will be adequate to remove injury to the domestic industry. While some Members follow the lesser duty rule, notably the European Communities, Australia, New Zealand and India, some others like the US and Canada impose the full dumping margin as anti-dumping duty. It can reasonably be argued that those imposing duty in excess of that which is adequate to remove injury to a domestic industry provide an undue protection to their domestic industry. Source- Safeguards, countervailing & Anti-dumping measures against imports & exports -2nd Edition Sept 2003.

45 | P a g e

ANTI-DUMPING LAW IN INDIA

46 | P a g e

ANTI-DUMPING LAW IN INDIA

Anti-dumping duty is a measure to rectify the situation arising out of the dumping of goods and its distorting effect on domestic producers of similar goods. The concept of dumping and subsidisation has long been known. Rapid industrialisation has resulted in large-scale production – and in this situation dumping enables the producer to establish a dominant position in the market. It is common in international commercial practice for export prices to be lower than the domestic ones so there is, as such, nothing inherently illegal or immoral about the practice of dumping. However, when dumping causes or threatens to cause, material injury to the domestic industry it is viewed seriously. The effect of dumping has been felt by India‟s domestic industries recently with the removal of „quantitative restriction‟ and lowering of custom duty. Indian laws were amended with effect from 1 January 1995 to bring them in line with the provisions of the respective GATT agreements. Sections 9A, 9B and 9C of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 as amended in 1995 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules 1995, form the legal basis for antidumping investigations and imposition of duty. Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) as amended in 1995 and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) framed thereunder form the legal basis for anti-dumping investigations and for the levy of anti-dumping duties. These are in
47 | P a g e

consonance with the WTO Agreement on anti-dumping measures. These rules form the legislative framework for all matters relating to dumping of products, which include the substantive rules, rules relating to practice, procedure, regulatory mechanism and administration. Substantive Rules “Dumping” means export of goods by one country/territory to the market of another country/territory at a price lower than the normal value. If the export price is lower than the normal value, it constitutes dumping. Thus, there are two fundamental parameters used for determination of dumping, namely, the normal value and the export price. Both these elements have to be compared at the same level of trade, generally at exfactory level, for assessment of dumping. “Normal value” is the comparable price at which the goods under complaint are sold, in the ordinary course of trade, in the domestic market of the exporting country. If the normal value cannot be determined by means of the domestic sales, the following two alternative methods may be employed to determine the normal value: Comparable representative export price to an appropriate third country. Constructed normal value, i.e. the cost of production in the country of origin with reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs and reasonable profits. The “export price” of the goods allegedly dumped into India means the price at which it is exported to India. It is generally the CIF value minus the adjustments on account of ocean freight, insurance, commission, etc. so as to arrive at the value at ex-factory level. The “margin of dumping” is the difference between the normal value and the
48 | P a g e

export price of the goods under complaint. It is generally expressed as a percentage of the export price.

“Domestic industry” means the domestic producers as a whole engaged in the manufacture of die like article and any activity connected therewith or those whose collective output of the said article constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of that article except when such producers are related to the exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof in which case such producers may be deemed not to form part of domestic industry. In regard to injury to the domestic industry, the industry must be able to show that dumped imports are causing or are threatening to cause “material injury” to the domestic industry. Material retardation to the establishment of an industry is also regarded as injury. The material injury or threat thereof cannot be based on mere allegation, statement or conjecture. Sufficient evidence must be provided to support die contention of material injury. An anti-dumping measure may not be imposed unless it is determined, pursuant to an investigation conducted in conformity with the procedural requirements, that: There is existence of dumped imports; There is material injury to a domestic industry; and There is a causal link between the dumped imports and the injury. The basic requirement for determination of injury is that there is an objective examination, based on positive evidence of the volume and
49 | P a g e

price effects of dumped imports and the consequent impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry such as decline in sales, selling price, market shares, profits, production etc. The establishment of the causal link between the dumping and injury to the domestic industry is a sine qua non for imposition of anti-dumping duty. The causal link is generally explained in terms of volume and price effects of dumping. The volume effect of dumping relates to the market share of the domestic industry visà-vis the dumped imports from the subject country while with regard to the price effect, it has to be considered whether there has been a significant price under cutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the like product in India, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a significant degree or prevent price increase which otherwise would have occurred to a significant degree. The relief to the domestic industry against dumping of goods from a particular country is in the form of anti-dumping duty imposed against that country, which could go up to the dumping margin. Such duties are exporter specific and country specific. Under the WTO arrangement, the national authorities can impose duties up to the margin of dumping i.e. the difference between the normal value and the export price. The Indian law also provides that the anti- dumping duty to be recommended/levied shall not exceed the dumping margin. An anti- dumping duty imposed under the Act unless revoked earlier remains in force for 5 years from the date of imposition. The Designated Authority is empowered to review the need for the continued imposition of the anti-dumping duty, from time to time. Such a review can be done somite or on the basis of request received from an interested party in view of the changed circumstances.

50 | P a g e

Anti-dumping duty is a source-specific duty i.e. imposed only against dumped imports Anti-dumping duty is imposed on a nondiscriminatory basis, applicable to all imports of such articles from whatever sources found dumped and causing injury to domestic industry except in the cases from those sources from which price undertaking has been accepted. The WTO Agreement as well as the Indian law provides that the injured domestic industry is permitted to file for relief under the antidumping as well as countervailing duties. However, no article shall be subjected to both countervailing and anti-dumping duties to compensate for the same situation of dumping or export subsidization.

51 | P a g e

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

52 | P a g e

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

One objective of the procedural requirements is to ensure transparency of proceedings, a full opportunity for parties to defend their interests, and adequate explanations by investigating authorities of their determinations. The extensive and detailed procedural requirements relating to investigations focus on the sufficiency of petitions to ensure that merit less investigation are not initiated, on the establishment of time periods for the completion of investigations, and on the provision of access to information to all interested parties, along with reasonable opportunities to present their views and arguments. Additional procedural requirements relate to the offering, acceptance, and administration of price undertakings by exporters in lieu of the imposition of anti-dumping measures. The Rules also provide for the timing of the imposition of antidumping duties, the duration of such duties, and obliges Designated Authority to periodically review the continuing need for anti-dumping duties and price undertakings. It is also provided that India may, at its discretion, take anti-dumping actions on behalf of and at the request of a third country, which is a member of the World Trade Organization. The anti-dumping proceedings are initiated based on an application made by or on behalf of the concerned domestic industry to die Designated Authority in the Department of Commerce for an investigation into alleged dumping of a product into India. Under the Rules a valid application can be made only by those petitioners/domestic producers who expressly support the application, and account for more than 25% of total domestic production of the like article in question. The application is deemed to have been made by or on behalf of the domestic
53 | P a g e

industry, if it is supported by those domestic producers whose collective output constitutes more than fifty- present of the total production of the like article produced by that portion of the domestic industry expressing either support for or opposition as the case may be, to the application. However, such producers may exclude those who are related to die exporters or importers of the alleged dumped article or are themselves importers thereof. In other words, a domestic producer who is related to the exporter or importer of die dumped article or is himself an importer thereof may not be treated as part of the domestic industry even if he files or supports an anti-dumping petition. The interested parties to an dumping investigation include: The domestic industry‟ on whose complaint the proceedings are initiated; The exporters or the foreign producers of the like articles subject to investigation; The importers of the same article allegedly dumped into India; The Government of the exporting country/countries. As a rule, the Designated Authority initiates the proceedings for antidumping action on the basis of a petition received from the domestic industry alleging dumping of certain goods and the injury caused to it by such dumping. However, Rule 5(4) provides for suomotu initiation of anti-dumping proceedings by the Designated Authority on the basis of information received from the Collector of Customs appointed under the Customs Act, 1962 or from any other source. In such circumstances, the Authority initiates the antidumping investigation on its own without any complaint/petition filed in this regard provided the Authority is satisfied that sufficient evidence exists as to the existence of dumping, injury and
54 | P a g e

causal link between the dumped imports and the alleged injury. After initiation of the suomotu investigation the same procedure, as the one based on a petition as mentioned in the Rules, is followed. The remedy against anti-dumping is not always in the form of antidumping duty. The investigation may be terminated or suspended after the preliminary findings if the exporter concerned furnishes an undertaking to revise his price to remove the dumping or the injurious effect of dumping as the case may be. No antidumping duty is recommended on such exporters from whom price undertaking has been accepted. An interim relief in the form of a provisional anti-dumping duty, pending the finalization of investigation proceedings, can also be provided to the affected domestic industry. Such provisional duty not exceeding the margin of dumping may be imposed by the Central Government on the basis of the preliminary finding recorded by the Designated Authority. The provisional duty can be imposed only after the expiry of 60 days from the date of initiation of investigation and will remain in force only for a period not exceeding 6 months, extendable to 9 months under certain circumstances. If the final duty levied is less than the provisional duty which has already been levied and collected, the differential amount already collected as provisional duty shall be refunded. If the final duty imposed is more than the provisional duty already imposed and collected, the difference shall not be collected. If the provisional duty is withdrawn, based on the final findings of the Designated Authority, than the provisional duty already collected shall be refunded.

55 | P a g e

ANTI-DUMPING DUTY CAN ALSO BE LEVIED ON A RETROSPECTIVE BASIS IN CASE

56 | P a g e

ANTI-DUMPING DUTY CAN ALSO BE LEVIED ON A RETROSPECTIVE BASIS IN CASE

There is a history of dumping which caused injury or that the importer was, or should have been aware that the exporter practices dumping and that such dumping would cause injury; and The injury caused by massive dumping of an article imported in a relatively short time which in the light of the timing and the volume of imported article dumped and other circumstances is likely to seriously undermine the remedial effect of the antidumping duty liable to be levied. However, the anti-dumping duty cannot be levied retrospectively beyond 90 days from the date of issue of notification imposing duty.

57 | P a g e

INVESTIGATION PROCESS

58 | P a g e

INVESTIGATION PROCESS

An application received by the Designated Authority is dealt with as follows: 1. Preliminary Screening: The application is scrutinized to ensure that it is adequately documented and provides sufficient evidence for initiation. If the evidence is not adequate, then a deficiency letter is issued normally within 20 days of the receipt of the application. 2. Initiation: When the Designated Authority is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence in the application with regard to dumping, material injury and causal link, a Public Notice is issued initiating an investigation to determine the existence and effect of the alleged dumping. The Designated Authority notifies the diplomatic representative of the Government of the exporting country before proceeding to initiate theinvestigation.The initiation notice will be issued normally within 45 days of the date of receipt of a properly documented application. 3. Access to Information: The Authority provides access to the non-confidential evidencepresented to it by various interested parties in the form of a public file,which is available for inspection after receipt of the responses.

59 | P a g e

4. Preliminary Findings: The Designated Authority will proceed expeditiously with the conduct ofthe investigation and shall, in appropriate cases, make a

preliminaryfinding containing the detailed information on the main reasons behindthe determination. The preliminary finding will normally be made within 150 days of the date of initiation. 5. Provisional Duty: A provisional duty not exceeding the margin of dumping may beimposed by the Central Government on the basis of the preliminaryfinding recorded by the Designated Authority.The provisional duty can be imposed only after the expiry of 60 days fromthe date of initiation of investigation.The provisional duty will remain in force only for a period not exceeding6 months, extendable to 9 months under certain circumstances. 6. Oral Evidence: Interested parties who participate in the investigations can request theDesignated Authority for an opportunity to present the

relevantinformation orally. However, such oral information shall be taken intoconsideration only when it is subsequently reproduced in writing. TheAuthority may grant oral hearing anytime during the course of theinvestigations.

60 | P a g e

7. Final Determination: The final determination is normally made within 150 days of the date of preliminary determination. 8. Disclosure of Information: The Designated Authority will inform all interested parties of the essentialfacts which form the basis for its decision before the final finding is made.

61 | P a g e

LIMITATION

62 | P a g e

LIMITATION
This research paper gives just an idea of various hazardous imports coming to India. But, it has limited criteria on the date part. Dumping is harmful for the country but political interference is partially touched in this paper.

63 | P a g e

SUGGESTIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

64 | P a g e

SUGGESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The waste be managed in an environmentally sound manner, treated and disposed of as close as possible to their source of generation and be minimized at the source. While dealing with hazardous waste, the Union Government needs to pay attention to including strategies for cleaning up of toxic and hazardous waste dump legacies, developing a national inventory of such dumps, an online monitoring system for movement of hazardous wastes and taking legal measures for addressing emergencies arising out of transportation, handing, and disposal of hazardous wastes.

65 | P a g e

CONCLUSION

66 | P a g e

CONCLUSION

The people and the environment of India are as worthy of protection as the people and environment of industrialized nations which have banned or restricted the usage of these hazardous and highly toxic materials. It appears that India with its large coastline, lax laws and obliging corrupt bureaucrats has become a dumping yard where industrialized countries can offload poisonous waste in the guise of recycling of uncontaminated or non-hazardous waste. The countries which offload their waste on India do so because disposal in their own countries is extremely and expensive and poses a severe threat to their own environments.

67 | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY

68 | P a g e

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS:  Indian Economy- RudraDutta & KPM Sundaram  Indian Economics- Mishra & Puri WEBSITE:     http://www.swlf.ait.ac.th http://www.scribd.com/ http://www.docstoc.com/ http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/hinduism-forum/184701-indiawests-toxic-dump.html

69 | P a g e

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close