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

1983 Supreme(Cal) 28

High Court Of Calcutta
SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, SUHAS CHANDRA SEN
BIRENDRA BAHADUR PANDEY - Appellant
Versus
GRAMOPHONE CO.OF INDIA LTD. - Respondent
A. F. O. O.  374  Of  1982
Decided On : 02/10/1983

Advocates Appeared:
A.K.AUDDY, Biswarup Gupta, MANOTOSH MUKHARJI, P.P.GINWALA, S.BANERJEE, S.ROY CHAUDHARY, S.SARKAR

The expression 'import' in the Customs Act means 'bringing into India from a place outside India' and does not apply to goods in transit.

Headnote:

CUSTOMS ACT - IMPORT - COPYRIGHT ACT - IMPORTATION OF INFRINGING COPIES - TRANSIT OF GOODS - TREATY BETWEEN INDIA AND NEPAL - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - MEANING OF 'IMPORT' - GOODS IN TRANSIT - NOT LIABLE TO CUSTOMS DUTY - NOT LIABLE TO CONFISCATION UNDER COPYRIGHT ACT.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a Gramophone company, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a direction to the Registrar of Copyright to dispose of the appellant's application under Section 53 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and to restrain the customs authorities from releasing certain pre-recorded cassettes, which were alleged to be pirated copies of the appellant's recordings, from their custody. The cassettes were part of a consignment sent from Singapore to Nepal, and had arrived at the port of Calcutta. The appellant contended that the cassettes infringed its copyright and should not be imported. The customs authorities contended that there was no application made by the appellant to the Registrar of Copyright in the prescribed form, and that no order had been made declaring any copy to be an infringing copy. The learned trial judge issued an interim order restraining the customs authorities from releasing the cassettes. The appellant challenged the interim order, and the trial judge passed an order vacating the interim order and dismissing the writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the goods in transit were not liable to customs duty and were not liable to confiscation under the Copyright Act. The court interpreted the expression 'import' in the Customs Act to mean 'bringing into India from a place outside India' and held that the goods in transit were not 'imported' into India within the meaning of the Act. The court also held that Section 51(b)(iv) of the Copyright Act, which deals with the importation of infringing copies, would not apply to goods in transit.

Issues: 1. Whether the goods in transit were liable to customs duty? 2. Whether the goods in transit were liable to confiscation under the Copyright Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the goods in transit were not liable to customs duty because they were not 'imported' into India within the meaning of the Customs Act. The court interpreted the expression 'import' to mean 'bringing into India from a place outside India' and held that the goods in transit were not 'brought into India' because they were not intended to be mixed up with the mass of property in India. 2. The court held that the goods in transit were not liable to confiscation under the Copyright Act because Section 51(b)(iv) of the Act, which deals with the importation of infringing copies, would not apply to goods in transit.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of the learned trial judge was set aside, and the writ application was dismissed.

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from a judgment delivered and order passed by the learned trial Judge on 14-10-1982. The petitioner before the learned trial Judge and the main respondent in this appeal is the Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. which carries on the business of manufacture and sale of records and/or recordings and/or cassettes etc. Such recordings are carried out by the petitioner under the agreements with various composer artists and other performers. Under such agreements the writ petitioner became the owner, according to the writ petitioner, of the original plates and, in any event, the first owner of the copyright of the said records and musical compositions. In the circumstances, the writ petitioner complained that it had the exclusive right to reproduce and manufacture records and/or cassettes from the original plates and no other person has or had any other copyright or other right with regard thereto and the petitioner was the first owner of the copyright in respect of the said records and/or cassettes and/or recordings. It is further the case of the petitioner that it came to learn from the Customs Authority that a consignment of pre-recorded cassettes sent by respondent 4, Universe Overseas Private Ltd. , from Singapore for respondent 5 Messrs. Sungava Enterprises Concern, Kathmandu, Nepal, which is the appellant before us, had arrived at the port of Calcutta by S. S. Virgo. The petitioner further alleged that it came to learn that a large part of the consignment consisted of pirated cassettes, i. e. , cassettes manufactured from recordings over which the petitioner had the sole copyright. The petitioner accordingly applied to the Registrar of Copyright. New Delhi, respondent 6, according to the petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of Section 53, Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution in which the petitioner prayed for an appropriate writ commanding respondent 6, namely, the Registrar of Copyright, to dispose of the petitioner's application under Section 53, Copyright Act, and in accordance with law. The application contained, inter alia, the following prayers :" (a) A writ of and/or an order and/or a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent 6 to forthwith issue and pass an order that the said pre-recorded cassettes now lying at the Port of Calcutta infringed the copyright of your petitioner in the various records and/or recordings and that the same shall not be imported. (b) A writ of and/or an order and/or a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith take appropriate steps under the Customs Act 1962 to inter alia confiscate the said cassettes and deliver the same to your petitioner. (c) A writ of and/or an order and/or a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing respondents 1 and 2 to forbear and refrain from releasing the said cassettes or any of them from their custody, care and control, (d) A writ of and/or an order and/or a direction in the nature of prohibition prohibiting and restraining respondents 1 and 2 and each one of them from releasing the said cassettes or any of them from their custody, care and control. "we may mention in this connection that respondents 1 and 2 in the writ petition were the Collector of Customs and the Assistant Collector of Customs. The other prayers are not relevant for the present purpose. The learned trial Judge issued a rule nisi and certain interim order. Thereafter an application was made for vacating the interim order by the present appellant before us. The application made by the present appellant before us was treated as the affidavit-in-opposition to the main rule and after giving opportunity for filing of the affidavit-in-reply the order impugned was passed on 14-10-1982. This is an appeal from the said order.

( 2 ) ON behalf of the appellant it was urged that the reliefs sought for















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