“where the criteria in section III,A 22 (d) and (e) are met and the equipment consists solely of defective consumer warranty returns, that are being sent back to the original equipment or design manufacturer as defective equipment or batches of equipment for repair to the producer or repair centres (e. g. under warranty) with the intention of re-use.”

From p. 8 of response by BAN to Basel Secretariat. 2010. ‘Draft Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movement of E-Waste, in Particular Regarding the Distinction between Waste and Non-Waste (Version 22 September 2010)’. http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Ewaste/TechnicalGuidelines/DevelopmentofTGs/tabid/2377/Default.aspx.

“ITI does not agree that all repairs (even minor repairs) should trigger a waste classification. The flow scheme does not reflect the likelihood that some parties would consider certain shipments of used goods for minor repair to be outside the Convention. Certain shipments for warranty return and in other instances should not qualify as wastes. The final box on left should read «Movement as non-waste can take place. “

From p. 10 of response by Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) to Basel Secretariat. 2010. ‘Draft Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movement of E-Waste, in Particular Regarding the Distinction between Waste and Non-Waste (Version 22 September 2010)’. http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Ewaste/TechnicalGuidelines/DevelopmentofTGs/tabid/2377/Default.aspx.

“this criterion [24(b)] merits further thought; as drafted, it could easily describe equipment being returned for warranty repairs, and thus be in conflict with paragraph 23(b) [equipment under warranty is not waste]”

From p. 8 of response by United States to Basel Secretariat. 2010. ‘Draft Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movement of E-Waste, in Particular Regarding the Distinction between Waste and Non-Waste (Version 22 September 2010)’. http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Ewaste/TechnicalGuidelines/DevelopmentofTGs/tabid/2377/Default.aspx.