SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. SONAK, JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
M/s. B. K. Polimex India Private Limited Through its Authorized Representative – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Through its Secretary, Delhi and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 14437 Of 2024
Decided On : 25-10-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr Shreyas Shrivastava, a/w Mr. Saurabh Shrivastava and Ms. Shraddha Swarup.
For the Respondents: Mr Jitendra B Mishra, a/w Mr. Abhishek Mishra and Mr. Rupesh Dubey.

Nudity alone does not constitute obscenity; artistic merit and contemporary community standards must be considered in determining obscenity under the Customs Act.

Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Section 11 - Notification No. 1/1964-Customs dated 18 January 1964 - Confiscation of artworks - The Assistant Commissioner of Customs confiscated seven drawings by renowned artists on grounds of obscenity, imposing a fine of Rs.50,000/- - The court found the ACC's reasoning to be based on personal interpretation without expert consultation, ignoring established legal precedents on obscenity. (Paras 18, 20, 29, 64)

(B) Obscenity - Definition and standards - The court reiterated that nudity alone does not constitute obscenity; artistic merit must be considered, and the community's contemporary standards apply. (Paras 44, 49, 57)

(C) Jurisdiction - The ACC acted beyond jurisdiction by failing to consider relevant legal standards and expert opinions, leading to a perverse decision. (Paras 65, 66)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the confiscation of artworks purchased from London, asserting they were not obscene and provided expert opinions to support this claim. The ACC's order was based solely on personal convictions regarding obscenity.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the ACC's order, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal standards and expert opinions in determining obscenity.

Issues: The main issues included whether the artworks were obscene and whether the ACC acted within jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the ACC's decision was unsustainable due to a lack of consideration for expert opinions and established legal standards regarding obscenity.

Result: Petition allowed; the impugned order quashed and artworks ordered to be released.

JUDGMENT :

(M.S. Sonak, J.)

1. Precisely sixty years ago, in Ranjit D Udheshi Vs State of Maharashtra, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 52, the Supreme Court of India, speaking through Justice Hidayatullah, declared that in India, the angels and saints of Michealangelo do not need to be made to wear breeches before they can be viewed. Still, in 2024, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs prohibited the import and ordered confiscation (and possibly destruction) of seven drawings by world-renowned artists, viz. Mr. F N Souza and Mr. Akbar Padamsee on the ground that such artworks, in his opinion, were obscene.

2. Accordingly, we issue Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioner challenges the order dated 01 July 2024 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Respondent No.3) confiscating the drawings by world-renowned artists, viz. Mr. F N Souza and Mr. Akbar Padamsee on the ground that such artworks were “obscene”. Apart from confiscating the artworks, the impugned order dated 01 July 2024 also imposes a fine of Rs.50,000/- on the Importer/Petitioner. There is no clarity on whether the impugned order directs the “destruction” of these artworks because at least the show cause notice issued to the Petitioner had referred to the destruction of these artworks.

4. In 2022, the Petitioner purchased three drawings by Mr Akbar Padamsee at an auction by Rosebery’s London and four by Mr Francis Newton Souza from the auctioneers Lyon and Turnbull London. The payments were made to the auctioneers through usual banking channels.

5. On 24 March 2023, the Petitioner booked M/s. Stephen Morris Shipping PLC, Greenford City London, United Kingdom, through M/s FedEx via airway bill (AWB) No.771665532428 for the above seven quantities of Padamsee and Souza artworks against the invoices issued favouring the Petitioner. The invoices specifically mention that the consignment from London to India was “nude drawings” after considering the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and to ward off the charge of any misdeclaration and suppression.

6. The artworks reached India on 27 March 2023. The counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Customs officials threatened not just confiscation but also destruction of these valuable artworks. The FedEx officials panicked and advised the Petitioner to apply for re-export rather than risk confiscating and destroying these artworks.

7. The Petitioner pleaded that under wrong representation from FedEx that the artworks fall under the category of “obscene material”, the Petitioner, being wholly misled, wrote to the Customs Authorities on 17 April 2023 seeking permission to re- export the said artworks. On 20 April 2023, however, the Airport Special Cargo Commissionerate (APSC) customs officials seized all the seven Padamsee and Souza artworks vide seizure memo dated 20 April 2023.

8. The Petitioner wrote to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs on 08 May 2023 seeking the release of the confiscated artworks by pointing out that the artworks were not obscene. Along with this letter, the Petitioner also provided a certificate issued by Sakshi Gallery of India and Grosvenor Gallery London to the effect that such artworks were not obscene. Even copies of printouts displayed in the Virtual Tour of the National Gallery of Modern Art, along with opinions of experts from various art galleries in London and India, were enclosed, along with the letter dated 08 May 2023 urging that these artworks by world-renowned artists were by no means obscene.

9. Since the Respondents had not responded by 07 June 2023, the Petitioner requested a personal hearing through its advocate’s notice. On 16 June 2023, the Petitioner was informed that a personal hearing would be given on 22 June 2023. The Petitioner’s representative was heard on 22 June 2023. He also produced a personal appeal from Ms. Meena Joseph Vari, Art Curator, Educator, and Dean at Srishti Institute o

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top