“There are two important changes to Alt 26(b) that must be made in order for it to be acceptable. First, the paragraph is not aligned with the text in the Convention. Since products destined for repair, refurbishment, and remanufacturing are not wastes within the scope of the Convention, it cannot legally be assumed that anyone who has not submitted documentation considers it to be a waste. Rather, the Convention states under Article 3 that countries are able to identify additional hazardous wastes under the Convention. Therefore, anyone who has not submitted documentation is assumed to not consider it to be a hazardous waste within the scope of the Basel Convention. Since the guidelines do not amend the Convention, countries might assume that exporting countries will be able to prevent shipments to importing countries who have not submitted documentation. However, the exporting country will not have the legal basis to do so under the Basel Convention.
Second, such a tool would need to be able to be utilized by non-Parties. Since used equipment destined for repair, refurbishment, and remanufacturing are non-wastes, the tool should be open to all countries who wish to use it.”
From p. 13 of response by United States to Basel Secretariat. 2014. ‘Draft Technical Guidelines on Transboundary Movements of Electronic and Electrical Waste and Used Electrical and Electronic Equipment, in Particular Regarding the Distinction between Waste and Non-Waste under the Basel Convention (Draft of 20 November 2014)’. http://www.basel.int/Implementation/Ewaste/TechnicalGuidelines/DevelopmentofTGs/tabid/2377/Default.aspx