Supreme Court of India
GRAMOPHONE COMPANY OF INDIA LTD.versusBIRENDRA BAHADUR PANDEY & ORS.
- Citation
- 1984 INSC 40
- Decided
- 21 February 1984
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- O CHINNAPPA REDDY
Holding
The Supreme Court held that "import" under s.53 of the Copyright Act includes goods brought into India for transit to a land‑locked neighbour and that international law and treaty obligations are part of Indian law unless they conflict with a parliamentary enactment.
Summary
The Gramophone Company of India sought to prevent the import of cassette recordings it alleged were pirated and destined for transit to Nepal. It applied to the Registrar of Copyrights under s.53 of the Copyright Act, 1957, to have the cassettes declared prohibited imports. The Calcutta High Court allowed the Registrar to inspect the consignment but the Division Bench later held that no import occurred because the goods were merely in transit, dismissing the company's writ. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether international law and treaty obligations on transit rights form part of Indian law and whether they override municipal statutes, and interpreted the term "import" in s.53. The Court held that "import" includes goods brought into India for onward transit and that international law and the India‑Nepal treaties must be read into domestic law unless they conflict with a parliamentary act. Consequently, the order of the Division Bench was set aside and the single judge's interim order was restored, allowing the Registrar to act under s.53. The appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether international law is incorporated into Indian law without a specific statute.
- Whether international law overrides municipal law in case of conflict.
- Whether there is an established rule of international law granting land‑locked states a right of transit through a neighboring state.
- The proper meaning of the word "import" in section 53 of the Copyright Act, 1957, especially in the context of transit.
Legislation cited
- Copyright Act, 1957s. 51, s. 52, s. 53
- Customs Act, 1962s. 11, s. 23
Subjects
copyrightimporttransitland‑locked stateinternational lawtreaty interpretationquasi‑judicial orderCustoms ActIndia‑Nepal treaty
Judgment
..•
.,
•.
'GRAMOPHONE ·coMPANY OF IN~IA LTD.
I.
-J v.
B :,.
B!R.ENDRA BAHADUR PANDEY & . ORS.
c Ftbraury 21 ,' '1984
. ' } .
[0. CHINMAPPA REDDY, E.S. YENKATARAMIAH A..'ID R.B.MISRA, JJ.j
' . '
D
Cl1pJ'rltht Act, 1955-J.O, 51 11rrd SJ-w11rd 'import'-m~aninz of. Char«-
t~r oferdtr uruhr s. 53-quasi-judicial,
. JntD1tt1tlona/ La,.._WMtlJU bet:om~s part of municipal law without aid of
E m~ipa} ltD!ui~Whtt!Je~ OoemQt mwt/cipa~ {uw /fl COIC of c~l!/ffct.
.J
/ltter~~atlona{ Law-Rule rttardill¥ ri¥1tl of land: locked states of innoctnl
I''"Ml¥' oftoo<h acr;ss a'fiOthtr state.
F
l'ractice-Couru nu.,t lnterprtt Mtlona/ law in a way io as '" a•·oid con·
/rolltallDn Willr lntvnatlo1111l low.
. lnterprttatk,,._p,u[e of-While l~ltrpretlnt ""'rds tJf•rcfinarypar{artt:l ufi
G rnrct 111 dlctlonar/n of 110 tZYI/, • · • •
lly trea;~and by inlematiooal convcntibn. lndia allo;,.,s transit fac!liti~
111
to Nepal, ha lltlJ.'lbour and a land-locked country. A companY bouc:d
K3thnandu N~"'·1 · ned . • · t•- froiD
. ' : .- •mPO a consramuent of pro-recor.Jcd cassc ''"
S•apporo whidt ..,.._ ~waitin; itt despatch to Nepal at Calcutta Port. IU tbo
\.
I
.
. '
..
"· '
I •
I
,.
·I. 'oRAMOPHONE· ell). v. B. B: P.ANDI5Y 665
~ a~pellant c~rupany suspected those cassettes. toJbe unauthorised' rep,roduction' of
its r~ords' and • cassettes, 'the import of which ipJo India :was ,Prohibited, tlte
appe!)ant-c_ompal,lY nro"9ed. the Ragistra·r 4>f Copyrights for action·under s.53 of
the cOpyright Act; 1957 which· enables the. R~gistrar, after. lil.aking such en~
quaries .as he deeme.4 fit, to order that copies made ' out of india of a work .whk.h
if made in india .would infringe copyright, shall .110t be importe<l. · A.s the Regis-
'• trar~ did. not take expenditi~us action,• the ippella,nt:compapy moved the High
Court by a writ petition. A single Jr;dge made an interim· ,oJder permitting the
appeliant-company. -to inspect the consignme~t ~nd if any of the cassettes were
1 found to have infi·inged. the · appellarH's copyhght, 1hey were to be kept apart
until further o~ders of the Registrar. The . Registrar ·.was directed to deal with
the application of the appe]lant~company. in ACCOrd~nce.with)a:.... The s:onsi'gnee
. ____.. preferred an· appeal against this o~def of ftbe single ·Judge.. A' Division)3ench of
•. the ·High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the, writ petition of the appellant· c
cpmpimy. The Division Bench heid, that there was no i¢p~rtation when·~the
goods entered. India tJn route to Nepal. - 'The Divisic;>D Bench was of the view; th&t
the ,word 'import' did not merely ·tneart bringing thd, goods into India, but com-
.. prehended something more,' that 'is, "incorpor~tiog and. mixing, or 'mixing up of.
the goods imported with the rilass of the property in tb~· local area". The
. company obtained special leave' to appeal. The questions which arose were : . ·D
_(i) wh~ther international law . is, ·of, its own force, drawn ifito 'the law .of the
land without the aid of a municipal-statute, '(ii) whether, so drawn, it o~errid~
·. municipal Jaw in case of conflict~ (iii). whether there is any ·weli estabiished rule' ·
· of :internat'ioiral law on the question ·of the right of-land-locked stat01 to inno· ·
'~~t . passage ~f the goods across. 'til~;'.~oil or another state; and' (iv). js ;,bat
the meaning of the,\\ ord 'i~poll' usco_ in s53 ·of the Copyright Act.
(
'lo..o~~. ' • • • :-~ ~ ' • i ~ E
. ..··, .. I.,
Allowing. the ap{>eal,
. I
HELD: ., F
...
-.
. ;:: On qutstions (i); & (ii)"!
~ .. . .. . .
· ..,...,...,,.:-;.;;: :rhere'can be np question that rlations must march with ~c (~~ational - :
~mrnunity an'd the municipal law must respect ruloa of .. international law oven ac ·
•.. nations respect international ~pinion.. ~ The ~mity of'
nations requires that rules
of international law may ·be ·accommodated in ,the· mumcipal law even without
· expt~ legislative ·.sanction provided tl)ey d~ no_t run into copfiict with Acts of
Parliament. But when they do run
into such conffict~ the sovereignty and the H
. integrit-Y. of the republic 11nd the Sl!pe~acy -~f- tho c<institut~ legislatures in
/
. I · ~.
6&6 SUPRI!MB COUltT REPORTS [ 1984) 2 tc.-.
making the lawS:=Y oot ,be · subjected to e~tern;1l rules except to the 1
·. Jeeitimltely accepted by the consituted legislatures themselves. The d ~ltt~t
. also rccoen•ses
incof110r&t;on . th e post..
!too th at th I f ' OClnllCof
e rues o tntero:luonal ~..
incorpora~ into nation:ll law and considered to be part of th~ rutionallllrt
unltss thty art in conflict witlt on A.C'I of Por/iomttrl .• Comity of cations or "·
rounicipal law l!IUSt prevail in case or conflict. Nation~! courts canr.ot sa no.
if Parliament bas• satd • • 1c o r tnlemauonal
• no to a pnnctp · · ' law. National conn, Y''"
B will endorse international taw but n~t if it conflicts will national 1~. l'atioll.ll
courts being organ.~ of the national state rnd not o~ns of intenutioll>) I••
must ~rforcc apply national law if international law. conflicts with it. But lite:
courts are under an oblia;atlon within leeitimatc limits. to so interpret the llllmi-
cipal statute as to avoid; confron!:-..tion with the cqmity of nations or lhc: ,..0
established principle• of iuternation:11 law. But if conflict is inevilable. the ltttu
.c must yield. [67l E·H) ·
•
Ptr Lora Da"''Utt AIR {n Tr.nduxt Traditt¥ Corp~t. v. Ctl!tral BaM,
[1977) I All I!.R. 881; Wm Rand C'tntrnl Gold !1/iJt{ng Co. ._, The b(,
[19051 21CB J9/; L/JIIttrpacht in /ntu~tionaf /..JIW (CetU:-;al Works); uuham CJ
D 111 PoUtks .v. Th• Comme;,•'talth 70 Comrnonw03ltjl l;~w ReporLS 60; Trrxrmr>-
upon, Mascow . v. M!1. Tarapo" 4c Compur1y a11d A11r, (1970) 3 SCR. S3ctfcc·
rod to.
On fUtJIIotl (Iii).
E
As .the leJ~oin& authomies on intccnation:.l JAw c.;prci!Cd di,clg<!DI vit•l
on the quest ton cif the tr.>rwt ri~:hts of land-locked counlric:l. tbo rC$ult, has· bel:ll
that~ lan.!-lockcd.countrie. have (o ,c]y oh bilateral, rcaoin.1l or multi-lattW
•&roententa for tbc rctXliUIU"on or tbc:ir rtgh!:i•. The very e.U>tcnce of innUitl<rilblc
F biateral tre.ties. Y~obilc 00 tho ooc band it raises a pr~uruptioq or the ·~ilt~
of a custoMAry ri~t of tnnsit, on tbc otbor it indicates the dependon~ of ~ 0
ri&hl on aaroement. 1bc most recent I96S ConvrJ)UtJD on Tran.iit Ttsde .
' • d ' ~....... . . . bile provt.l-
~n -""""""' Statco, to ..-b•ch both Nepal and India arc !lgnato~1, ~'< oct•..!
10~ for fr~~e.Jom of traJWt for the pa•,suec of &?<JtiS between t_ho (an~ (,S
state and tho sea, a.:ro.t the terti tory of a transit state c.mphasae the . ~
G •areement bc.twccn the land-locked country and the tr.IDsit c:<Juntry. The b•~.t ·111
T re&ty or Trade anJ Tn::aty of Transit entered Into bo:tween lmha · • nJ l"e1- ~
1
ord 10 d •uartotco
•r upan traJc between the two countries in rn~~:ticc mean 1 • tp.!it
Nepal to Permit froo lnd unlumpcrcd flow of gooJs .~ed bY tolcp:ll fro)llt todi'
alld 1 auaran~ec or froedorn of transit) for goods originatina from ou~·~ 1'rtdf
aero~ thcl territory or India to reach Nepal. But tbc Com·cntion on. Tr:uutl .;~'let
H or .Ut!d-lotL-d <'
"" »tltet and the Treaties tJ.:t"een the two tuuntn.-•. ,.
·- lt:a\'0 V
~.r,
. d~~'"'"'
f
C<>ufttry r• to j-~ - a r y r~trictions ror tho pufl)OM of protcctJOI
... .. .··: ~ ·':
' ...
'·
GllAMO~HONE co. v. JI.B : PANDEY. 667·
-·-. ,
. \. iterary or artistic' property and preventing false marks, fats~. indications: of origin'- .
_·or other methods of unfair competiti'on in order· to :,further other gel_lera:t conven- ·
A
tions. . It is clear that for this purpose, it is not necessary that t,he land-lock~d
· country should . ~- a party .to
the ·general conver;~ions --along with 'the tra~it
country. The· interpretation placed . by John H.B. 'Fried in the Indian Joumal of
·international law that ihe provisions .-of the 1965·Conventibn)ermit the~•.States of ·
transit to· enfo~ce, say a Copyright or trade'.'mark convention even if, for ~xample, .8
neither the country'
of origin
., .
no; of destination
. is. '~)arty to. it appears
. ,
. be (correct ..
to
... -1,
_interpretation. [67S B-H)
...
An arti~tic,. literary or musical worlcj is the brain-chilq' .of its a~thor, Uie .
fn~< of his labour, ?.nd so, considered to bC' his prot)erty. So highly is"it · prEled by .
o ' ' ' o • ' I
all civilised nation; that ·it · is thought, worthy 'of protection· by national laws and
{
c
international Conventions relating to Copyright. The International <:;onvention .for
. '·the protection of literary or artistic
.
· works first signed afBenic
~ . --
on:• 9t~ ~Septem:ber,
.. ' t
·..
· 1886 and finally revised at Paris in -1971 provided for protection to the authors· of .
literary and artistic ·works. ·The Universal Copyright Convention first signed at
Gene~a on 6th Septcmbe·r 1952 and revised in Paris iiiH7.1 requires th~ eontract-
ing st;Hes to provi4c for .the adequate and cff(l\:tive Protection of the rights of ·· D
authors and other oopyright Proprietors in leterary, scientific and artistic 'works
including writings., musical, dramatic a!ld cinematograph works arid_paintinss Clll·
raving and.sulpture. ['84 G:H] . · /..
I •
4:-On IJIIest~n N•. (iv) · . .
-~
4 .
.r
·. " .. •. . .; . ·. . ' ' . ' .
, · · · the word 'import' is not defined iii. the' Copyright Act'though·it is defined
in the . Customs Ac( But ·the same \Vord~·may . mean .different things in different ..
enactments and in different conteX\S: Jt may eyen mean different things different •· at
. places m the_samcstatute. It'ati depends on the sense of the provision'•where it occurs. · \ {? ·
Reference to dictionaries is hudly of any avail particularly in the case of words of
.ordillilry1parJance with a variety of well-know meanings. Such.word . take colQUr .
. from the context. Appeal·to the Latin root won't help. • The ~ppealJLmust .be io ~lie
• "
.. sens~·or the statute. [~89 ~fl · • • r
,. ·
-~ .G~. :
, Thesubmission tbatwhere!fga'ods are~ ( brougbt ·i nto the. cou~try not for
._colllillerce;but for onward transmission to another country, there can; in law, be ..
· .no importation, is not acceptable. In the first.i>_lace, the language of s .. 53 'does not
justify·reading the.wo rds 'imported for commerce' for ttic words •imported; N~r ia
there any reason to assume that such was the ob.iect of t the legislature: While-inter-..!'
pre~~ tbc ~ords ' import ' in ~he Copyright Act, o~e must take [note that while fbe,A ft
.PeStive requiremeilt a( the Copyright Converitions·:is to pu)icct cop)·ligl.t, .negatively
.. . . .. . . '
"V r· .
. ~,.
r
..
.. ·('
...
668 SUPREME COURT RBPORT~ [1984] 2 S.C.R.
A also·, the :rl·~hsit Tr~~le 'C~n~ention and t~e bilate~al Treaty make excepti~s enabl-
'ing tho tranait atate to tak~ mea5u~e to pr.otect C~yrigbt. If this much is borne-
in mind, it becoma clear that that thy word ··import'in s. -53 of th~ Copyright Act
cannot,bear the llatroW interpritatio'n llOUght to be p!ace<J upon it to limit it to
· import for commerce. It ml!Ut ~ interpreted irf a senes which-will fit the Copyright
Act into the setting of the Intcrn;ttional Con'(e,!]tions. [690 B-E]
'. • • • • • ~ •• < • ·'.
B
The word •import' in s~ce&. 51 and(.53 of the Copyright Act mea)'ls br.~g
ing into India.from ouMidt India', that it is not limited to importation for com-·
tllefCe only: but includes importation for transitacro~s the ·eountry. This interpreta-
tion, far from beillli inconsistent with any principle of _InternationPI Law, i,s
entitely in accord with International Conventions and· the Treati~ between India
and Nepal.[,91 H, 692A),
• Tb.c' Hiah Court ' thOught that goods may be said to be Imported i_nt0 •
the country if there is an ineorPoration. or mixing ·up of tht good~ imported
o?ly ..
--~-
with the mas~ of. the ProPerty in the local area. ln othe~ words the ll!gh Court
reli~ on the Oriaillt\1 Package ·n.octrine' as enunciated by Chief Justice Marshall
in Browll ~; St~1e o.( Maryland 6 L,Ed. 78. Reliance was placed by the ,High
D Court upon the decision of this Court in the Central. india Spinni11g and Weaving
&;. Mam(facturinz· Co. -J,td. The :Empr;I!!S Mills, · Nagpur v. THe Municlpol
C<Jmmitte,, Wardha [1958] SCR 1.102~ That was a C6Se which arose under .the
C.P.and B~:~rar MunicipaHtie!!. Act and the question was whether the Pc!wcr to
impo~e '"a terminal tax. goods .or animals importid into or exported from the
a
limit• of 'munlcipaljty'; included -tho right to levy· tax on goods .which 'were".
:E ·. n•ither,loaded or unloaded 'at· Wardha but were mereiy carried .across throunh toe .
~unicipal area'. We.. are afraid the ' case is really not of any guidance to
~ . .
us.
0
sin'ce ·.
in the context of a 'termin!ll t&x:' the ,word,<~ 'imported and-exported' could be
construed in no ~other manner than was done by, the Court. We must ·how~er
._ · say that the 'origi'tlal PaCk~ge doctrine' on !Vhieh reliance was placed wa! exprcs- ;
~ly. disapproved tirat by tbi Federal. Court in the Province of Madra! v. Boddu
\ Paida1111a : [1942] FCR 90 and again by the Suprcme.Couit m Stat~ of Bombay _v-~ 1
F P.N. Ba!Mlra, [1951] SCR 6112 .. [693 G-H, 691 A-Bl
AQ 'order made under s. 53 of the Copyright 'Act is quasi-judicia[.. The
s:
· Registrar is not boun4 to make an order under 53 of the Copyright Act soon so
as an appJfcatr0 n ia presimted to him bY the owner of the Copyright. Ho has·
na~rally to· consider the c·ontext of the n1ischief sought to be prevented. He must
G consider whether the _cepios would infringe tho Copyright if the copies were made
ia India. He
must. consider whether the app_licant owns the copyright _or the·
. duly authorised Agent of the Copyright. He must hear those claiming ·to be ·
affected if an ordor .]s made atnd - con~ider any contention that may be put forward'
aa 'an excuie for the lmport. He maY coo~ider any oth.er rdevant circumstance. Since
H all legitimate defence's are upen and the~ enquiry is quasi-judici.al, one can :no
s&riottsly 80J!tplain. [692'1'!-01
(
,. ' I
llf • ' • • • •••
'GRAMOPHONil co. v. B. it P.4.NDEY.(Chinnappa' ReddY, J.) 66~
. .- - ' . . . . . -{, .
..
. \
. .
. CI;viL~APPELLATB JmusorcriON: Civil Appeal Nos. 3216·3218 of A
198,3.'
.. Appeals by ~peci3:l ~ea~ from the Judgment ·~md Ordet date.d
the lOth February, 1983 of the Calcutta,High Court in €)ri-ginal ~rder ...•. B
~bs. 374-376 .·of 19S2:
/
>-..rC
,.
·...
Soli J. SorabJee, Harish N. Salve, Sudip;o.Sark~r & D.N. Gupta, ~
_.;..r- . for the Appel,I~r~.t. · · ·
. '" •
fs~nti Bhtuhan, S.K. Roy Cho~dhur!Y and"il.S. Parihar for '
Respondent No. ) in CA._ 32i6 of ~983.. •. ' '
-I
. " - .
, B. Gupta, 's.K. Roy Chowdhary and H.S. Pdrihar for R.e~p9n.·
dent No; .1. -in cA. 3217·18 -of. 1983. D
'
/' I
. .
.P.A. Francis, :i.N. PoiJar for t~e Resp~nde:k
.•
,f . I(, P~rasaran,; Attorney General, ·Gop'a/ Subrarnaniaf'IJ ~nd e.
4
v.. .E
J..i;;::__J. Subba
.
J?.ao in response to notice. . .· · .
'
• .
t-
..
"
_ 'G.S. Sanghi,. Shankar ·Mitra and P. Sinha for Intervener-:-
. -"!
Oceank Shippi~g Agency'(P.) Lt,d.. . / .... F
. '..
•. ""· ,.
.
"'
The 1u9.gment 'or the Cou;t was, delivered by ·'
.
·~ '
.. .
CHINNAPPA Reooy, 1. · Nepal is our neighbo~r. Unfortunately •. ·
··Nepal is land-locked. Nepal's only access: to the ~ea is 'across ~ndia.
••
·So, as one good neighbour to another with a view to 'malntain, develop
and strengthe~- the fr~endly ·relati~ns ;_·between • our two·· countries, ,by . .
treaty and by Interna~ional Convention,' we. allow a right of irui~cent
· passage ,in ord~r to facilitate. N~pal'~. intcrn.ational tr;_e.de. One· of the H
/
-·. . . . ~
questions before us iii t~e·extent of this right :Does the right 'cov~r the
-
;
670 ~tfPRiiMll COUU RBPORT~ [19~4} :G s.C.R.
A 't~a:nsit of ~oods which may _not be imported into 'India? May good~
which·may not be brought-intoJndia be
taken across Indian territory?
. ·What does "import'' mean, more particu~~rly what does "import"
mean in Sec. 53 of the Copyright Ad? Can an unauthorised reprccl.uc•
., tion of a lit·::rary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or n record eJ)1·
of
bodying an ~nauthorised recording a record (which, for short, ~dopt
·B ing trade parlance, we may call' a ·pirated work), whcse irr.pcrtafion
into India may be prohibited, but .whose importation into Nepal :is
not prohibited, be taken across· India~ territory to Nepal? These are
.some o( the
. questions ,.. which
. arise fM comideration in this appeal.
. / . •.. . ' .. •·
c .
. The questions. have arisen this way: The appellant, the Gramo-
' ' . .
phone Company of.. India Limited, is (j. wcll-knowri manufact~rer of
musical records and cassett~s. By agrecmell.t with the -performing
artistes to whom royalitics are paid, the appellant company 'is
the
pwner of _the 'Cqpy ·right in. such recordings. The appellant received
~nformation from the Custom. Authnritie.s at Calcuttath at a consign-
.. t ' . ~-""
.
· ment bf prerecorded cassettes sent by Universal Ov~rseas Private Ltd.
'··
· Si·ngaP,.ore to M/s. Sungawa Enterorises, Kathmandu, ~Nepa~, had.
arrived at'Calcutta Port by ship and was awaiting·ct.espatch to Nepal.
The appella~t Iea.Jnt that a substantial number of~~assettes w~re 'pira-j
ted works-', this fact having come to light through the bjoken condition
· of the consignment which' was lying in the Calcutta docks. Basing
E upon the information receiv.ed, the appellant sought the intervention
of theRegistra: of Co~y.rights for action und~r Sec. 53 o,f the C~pyright __;.;..,
Act, 1957. Tl11S ptoVJSlon enables .the Regtstrar1 after makmg such .
enquiries as he deems fit, to order t'hat copies made m1t of India of a
work which if made in India would in.fringe copy right, shall not .be
imported. The provision also enables the Registrar to ·enteli any 'shipr.,
F docJ< or.pren?.ises·where 'such copies may be found. and to examine suc~1, .,.-
oopies. All copies in respect of which an order is made prohibiting
I, their import arc deemed· to be goods the import of which. is prohibited
or restricted un~er Sec. 11 o.f the Customs Act, 1962. n,e prcvis.icn~ .
: . of the Custom Act, are to have.effcct in respect of these copies. 'All
copies confiscated under the provisi<>ES of the said Act are not to vest
G to
· ·in the Government, but to be deli~e'r<'d the owner of the copy right
in the work. As the Registrar was net taking exyrditious action on the .
. application of the appellant and as it was apprehenr.ed th~.t the pirated
cassettes woul<!. be releaseJ. fer tr~.nq:Crtaticn t~ Nep,pl, the appellant
filed a writ app1ication in the Calcutta High Court seeki'ng a writ in
H 'the nature :of ~andamus to compel ~e Rrgi&tar:::r to p..ss rn. appro-
priate crder under Sec. 53 of the Copyri~t Act 1wd to prevent relea~e
"·'
'·
', \ ·, ' . '. . .
' ~ GRAMOPHONil CO. V. B.B. _PAND!JY ,(Chinnappa ReddyJ.). ~71
I
-~ of t1.e c:1ssettes. fr0m the . custody of . the customs authorities. A
. . I , .
The learned single judge. of the Calcutt,a High Court, on the request : <
of the appellant, issued a Rule Nis~ and made ai1 interim order permitt-
1ing the appeUant to inspect the consignmept of casscttei>"and if any"of
the cassettes' we_re thought tb infringe the appellant~s· copyr'igb( they .
wereto be kept apart:~ntil further orders oft}lc Reg~strar. After causing ·
the necessary'inspectionto be·made, the Registrar was directed to deal · .B
'with the application under Sec. 53 of the Copyright Act in accordance
.~~ -· with law·after heating interest_ed p:Uties. The :Registrar was di,rected
· ·. · to deal with the :'1-Pplication·within eight we~ks from tlie date o'f the
---¥. . . High C~urt;s br9-ec: In the _event of any th~ cassettes held back by of
the appellant being found not to inf~inge · any provision of the Copy-
right Act,, ~he appellant was to pay damages as· assessed by. the GOurt. '. c
Against the learp.ed s1ng1c Judge's order, the. consignee preferm1 a_n I
of
appeal und'er daus'e. 15 the Letter!' Patent. A Di~ision B~nch of. the
C:tlcuttaJiigh Court held that the word 'import' did not merely mean.
bringing ~he'g')ods ·intq' India, .but~~mprehendea· something ·ffio~e, that
is; "in';orporting and mixing, or mixing up of the goods imported with
the' m1SS of the property in the local area". /The learned judges t]:lought··, ·D
. it wo:u!d b':l wrong to say that there .Was importation 'into India, the
v mo~entthe goods crossed the lniJ.ian customs barrieL Keeping in view ·
. · the . t;eaties with. Nepa11 . th~ Divisi~n. Bench ·took the view-that
~· .,... . · there was no importation when -the go_ocl.s entered India ·en _·
.. ,route to- Nepal: The appeal was, thetefore;. a!Jowed and the . writ
r
; petition· filed by the. present appellant ·was dismissed. .:.And so, the E
--~writ petition~r ,in the High Court has appealed to us ' U~lder' 136 of the
· Con5titution.
First, we shaltl'!~am{ne if.thereis-any_m~tida.te ofinternati~~al
I~ w or
if the ruk's of international law afford any guidance and if us F
such mandate or guidance is preceptive ·under· indian law. Two ques-
tions arise: first, whethcrinternationallaw 1s, of, its,own (oice, drawn
. i~to the la'w of,·th~ land without the aid of a muni~ipal· statute and,
. second, whethe.r,'so dra\v,n, it overrides' municipal Ia win case of ~onfiict.
lt'has been said in England that there are two schools of thought,. one .
school o'f thought propounding the doctrine of--incorporation 1,\nd the G.·
Other, the doctrine cf transformation.(] J AccordiriS to the one· rules
of inten1ational law are· i~corp~m-1-ted into the' law of fue land. auto.-.
~ticnJly and .conside'red -to be part of the law of the ·land unless· in ·. ·
' .~ ' . .. . . . . ' ' ~ . . .
- - - -TO- •••• • •
. (1) Per Lord . Danning MR i11 Trtrtdltxt 1)ading Corpn, v: Central' Bank• H
• [1-977(1) All ~.R. 881] .
.·
972 SUPREMI COURT REPORTS . [1984] 2 s;c.R.
~-
A . conflict with an Act of Parliam~nt. According to the other, rules of
International law are not :part .of the law of the land, unless already
so by an Act ofParlia!lJ.ent,judicial decision or long established custom.
According to the one whenever the rules.of international law changed,
t~ey would result in a change ofihe law of the land ·.along ~ith them,
'without the aid of an At:t of Parliament'. According to the other, no
B • su;h change would occur unless those principles are 'accepted and
adopted by the dmestic law'. Lord Danning who had once accepted
the transformation doctrine without qucs_ti'on, late~ veered round to
express a preference for the doctrine of incorporation nnd_ explained
how courts were justified in ·applying -modern rules of international
. law when old rules of international law changed. rn fact, the' doctrine
·C of incorporation, it app'ears, was accepted in England long before \,
. Lord Danning did s<-1. Lord .Darwing himse~f referred to some old
cases. Apart from those, we may refer to West Rand Central GfJld
Mining Co. v. The King<11 where the court said:
/
D . :"It is quite ~rue that whatever has· received the common
cons«<.nt of civilized nr.tions must have received the assent of
.our countr~~~ and that to which we have assented alo.ng w~th other
.•
.11ations in · gene,.a'l may proper]~;. be C'tllcd international Ia w,
. I
and as such wm be acknowledged and applied by our municipal
. tribunals- when legitimate .occasion arises for those tribunals to
decide questions to which doctrines of international law may. be ·
· relevant". · · · 1' ·
~ ~-
Lauterpacht in International Law (Gener~l Works) refers to the
position in G~rmany, France, Belgium and Switzerland and says
. ~it is the same. He quotes what a German Court said to m~et anargu·-
F m.ent that the role of customary international law conflicted wi1hArt.24
of the German Code ~f Civil Procedure. The court ·had said, "The
·legislature of the German ReiCh did not and could not intend any
~iolatioli of generally recognisc:-d niles ofi nternational law, when enac-
ting Art. 24 of the German Code of Civil Procedure". Lauterpacht
. refers to another German case -.where the argument that 'there ought '
to
,not to be a. direct recourse the law of. nations, except in so far as·
there has been formed a German customary law' was rejected with .....
.. -:.-'
the statement "The contention of the Creditor that international law
is applicable ~nlY in so far as jt has be.e n adopted by German Custo-
I
'·
mary Iaw, lacks foundation in law. Such a legal maxim would, more-
(2) [1905 8 KB. 391
- \
...
: -~ • ~ + ••- •
: ,.. i- ~ • .\ ::.
·- i-: ·"
··.- .-.
l.' , ..
. . \ . .
. GRAMOPHONE Co.~v. B.B. PANDEY (ChinnappaReddy, J.) 613
'
- over, if generally applied,· lead to th~ untenable .re'~ult that.in the'in: . A
. ....; tercourse of nations' with one. another; there would obtain not a uni- \
·form system__:_internationii la~-bu't ·a series of more ~r less diverse . •·
municipal laws";"" Lauterpacht sum.~aris~s· the 1 position, this way!..:_
' . .
. . "While it is clear that inter~ational law may and d'oes '·ti B .
. '-
ac't dlrectly )within the St.ate, it is equally clear that a rule~that as
. .,:...... ) . . direct operation qf inter'~aii~nal Jaw is within the State subjeci
to the qverridirig authority~of municipal law. ·cour~s. must ~pply . .
·__x-... statutes even if they conflic't witli international law. The supre-
' . mileY>: of interriatio'naliaw, lasts, pro foro infeni?,. only so loilg
. as the State does not expressly and ' uriequiv~cally. derogate from c
· it. When it thus· prescribe~ a_ departure from iqternationallaw, .
. C~~ventiomtl or .cn~tomary, ;j~~ges a~e Confronted ,with-~· con-
. :thct of ·international law and municipal law and; being <;>rgans
appointed by the State~ th~y are compelled to apply the lat~er" ..
. '
. . There can be no q~estion that. ~ations ·~ust ~a-r~h . with·; the
\
l . -D
- international comin~nity ~nd the Municipal law mus't respect rules of
' Inte~national law even as nations ·respect intern~ tiona! opiiuon. Tl;te;
. comity o( Nati~ns requires that R~les or:'Ititerriational law 'may be
. " ·t". ·accommodated in 't~e Mu~icipal Law. eve_n without.express tegislat~ve
·: · : ~a~ction provided th~y do no't run into' c~tifiiet with Acts of Parliament.. E
_, -..1Pt when 'they do run into such ~qnflict, the sovereignty and the inte- ' _. _ · r
.,.
.__ --trity of ~he Republic and the·supr€l:macy of the. constitut¢d lt;gislatures
in making the' laws. may 'not be subjected1t6 exter!J.alrules except to the
extent legitimately accepted· ·by the constituted .legislatures themselves . .'
The doctrine· of incorporation also recognises the position that the
.._,. rules of inte·rnationallaw· ~re incorporated into natiQnal Jaw and con~. F
. sidered to be part ofthe .national law, unless . theyar~ in covflictwith ; --'
... an A~t of Pq~liam~nt; _Comity ,ofNat.ions pr MunicipaLLaw must . ·. no,
. , . preva1I in case t)f ·conflict. National Courts cannot say yes if Parlia- . ·
ment has s·aid no to a principle of internatio.nallaw. National <.:;ourts ·
will endorse internationaflaw but not if it conflicts with national law~ .
Na~io11al courts bei~g organs of. the ~ation~l. State 'and_nqt o~gans G ·.
of mternationallaw must perforce apply .national law if.interna~wnal
·'Ia.. law confiicts~'with iL But the Co~rts ate under an obligation within ~- ..
'legitimate limits, to so interpret' the Municipal ' Statute 'as avoi4o to'
confrontation with the comity of Nations or the weil established prin-
' cipll!s of Internatiohal· Ia w. But. if conflict is inevitable; the·latter IPU&t H
yi~Id. .. . J. . • . .
. -.fl '
·._·' ,' ·- .. ' ...
..
_..
(
674 SUPJlEMI COU!tT ~RI3P01l"J;'S . [1984] 2 s.c.R.
A Tl1e proposition has b~en well sta:ted by Latham CJ in Politics r. ~-.
The Cominonwealt!z 111 : ~
"Every statute is to be interpreted imd applied, as far' 'as
·its language admits, as not to' -be inconsistent with the comity
8 of nations or with the established rules. of international Jaw .... : .... ·
It mus! be her4 that lcgislati~n othqrwlse within the power of '
the Commonwealth Parliament does not -become invalid because _..,_.
tit conflicts with a ·rule of international law, ·thd~gh every effort
. should be made to construe ·Commonwealth. statute~ so as ~ ·
avoid breaches. of international law and.
-of intei·national. comity.·
c
~
· The question. therefore, is not a question of the power of the
·Commonwealth Parliament to legislate in t>n~ach ·of international
law, but is a question whether in fact ·it h:>s done w".
. ~ I •
I I
•I
The Supreme Court of fndia has· s~id practicaHy the same thing
t2)
D in tFf
Hnetorotxport, Mascowv. M/s Taraprrre & Company and Anr. '
"Now; q.s stated in Halsboury's La.ws of England, Vol .. 36,
page 414, there is ·a presumption that Parliament does not .assert j· •
or assume jurisdiction which goes beyond the limits esablishcd
by the .¥ommon consent of nations <Jnd statutes are to be _inter:-j.,
pteted provided, that their language permits. so· as not to ~_,__ .
inconsistent ·with th6 .comity of nations cr with the establish~d
principles -of internaticnal law .. But this principle applies only
where there is an ambiguity 't~n~ must .give· way before a clearly
·.expressed intenti0n. Jf statutory enactments are ckc.r _in mean-
. ing, they must be constrnrd according to their meaning _'even ~-·
/
F
tliough they are contrary .to the comity ()f nations or ·international
law''.
. ..
; The observations show that' the co11rt was only concerned with .: • f
fj 'a principle of i-nterpretation, but, by, impliCation, it may be poss.ible
·to say that the court preferred the doctrine of incorporation; otherwise ·,A_
the:--question of interpretation WO\lld not truly asise. Wlu!t has been '
. '( '
H (1) 70 Commonwealth Law Reports 60.
' (.
(2) [1970] 3 SCli ?3.
,,
.i
, :-t.. sai_d i 11 th~ rractoroexport case is entirely consistent :with what we ha~c. A I
• ·
1
satd earher./
. \
~ ·· . .· · · · ·· -
..
•
· rs th.'!re ..any weH estabhshed principle of international law on the
Jque_stio)l of the. right ~f land--locked ·states· to innocent r p..~ssage of :
'pods acmss the soil ;of aJlOthe~ State?. Tt appears that "the leading ·.~ B
authorities on international law have expressed divergent. :views on the·· .
J-
-.....;.,... qu'!Stion of. th~ transit rights/ of· !and~---locked countries, While one
· gro,up'of writers,_ such as, SibeJ:t, Scel!e and othet'i? have held the view..-
. ··..tl:r;f1 th~s~ co\.t.ntri.es i11ve my inherent righi of transit across Jieighbvu.r- · ,, .
_ -,Jg couatries; other equally emitl<;:nt -authorities, s'uch as. Me Nair
. a11:d ·Hyde have held tl1e. view t~at these .rights are not principles ·re~o- -C,
. f -. g'lis~d by. int~rnational 'law, but arrangements made by sovereign -
·Stat~~" ..nJ Tile ro:su1t of the l~ck ofunanimity has been thaphe .land;--· .-,.
, lock~d· co~ntrie~ have to rely ·on bilateraL regional ·or multi.....J.[ateral
.. -~ . . '
agr 5~m~.ltS for the r.~cagnition <?f .their. rights. The ' very: existence .
of inn~merable bilateral treaties, while
• • j •
on
the one. Iiand it raises a / "'
• • •
pr.~sLi.mptiotl of the existenc~ of ·a. customary· right of transit, c~ the~ r D
. oth~r it!indicak~ the d·~pend~~nce of the ·right on agreement. The dis- i . .
col;tentin-g situatio11 led to attempts by
nations to codify the .rules reh\t- ·
ing to• tral).sit trade.' Th.e earliest attempt was the Conventioh qn th}
. _.,.,.. Freedom of Transit known generally ~s. the .B~rcelona Ccmventioh.
~
The .second attemptwas the Conven,tion on tl1c High Sease, I 9:58: The'
JUostrecep.t in the 1965 C6NVENTION.ON TRANSlT TRADE OF
£ANn-:.-LOCKED STATES, As this ist11e latest ConveJ!ticn on the·.
•.
· ·. subJect and as both f1idia and: Nepal have signed -the Cqnvc,ntion, it
may be useful to refer to it in som,e <,ietai'l. The ConventioJl was the
r~5ult of a Resolution Qf the United Nations· General Assembly 'which,
. "recoinisiug the need of land-lo£ked countries for·'a:dequate transit -
·.t ~...,. fayilities in promoting internationa]_trade", ipvitcd "the Governments ·F
· :of Member States to·give t;ull·recognition to the needs of lund--locked . ·
'' M ember'-States it~ the matter of transit trade. :.uid therefore; to ~·aecorcl.
them adequ~te facilities in terms of'interuational hw .and practice in
·this t-'.':ga.rd, bearing in. mind the fut'Ui.-e• requirements resulting' from
. the economic -de~elop;neut or'.tlu~ ·laud-~locked countries". Ariticle. 1
• · (a) of the Convention d~fin~s t~e '!~nd~lock.ed State~' as meat~i~g
term G
'auy Contracting ·state wJ:llch has· ,no sea-cast. The term. "traf!ic .
~ -~_.._· _i_n_T_r_a_n;...s-it_"_i_s_d_e_fi_ri_ed_\_l_~ke
•
this: the passage of goods in~ludirig \mac·
compariied b:'!l!'i'•Jl" -across the territory of a' Contractihg Stat< bet~''" ,
· (I) SeeR. Makil Transit' Riahts of Land·locked tountries :. Journal of WorJd H
' Trade Law ..Vol. o4 .Pa~:e ?4.
' . . ' -.
. ·. .
'.
' 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. t . [1984] 2 S.C;R.
f
A · ~ land ~be ked State and the sea when the pass.age is a portion o.f a . J,·
complete journey which begitls or terminates Within the territory of
t~t land-locked. State and which includes sea 'transport directly
' preceding or follow_ing such passage. The · transhipment, warehouing,
breaking b1,1lk, and change in the mode of transport of such goods as
w.e\l as tb.e assembly, disassembly or reassembly of machinery r..nd ·
bulky goods shall not r~nder the passage of goods outside the definition .
l of ':traffice in transit" provided that. any such operation is undertaken ·'
sofe1y for the convenience of transportation. Nothing in this paragraph- >~-·-..'
)hall b~ construed as imposing at! obligation on any Contracting State'. .
to est3.blish or permit the establishment o$ peirnanent facilities._,on-~~
·territory for such assembly, disassembly or reassembly"; The term ~
''transit State" is ddined as meaning 'any Contracting State with or'
without a sea-coast, situated between a land-locked State and the
sea, through whose territory "traffic in transit". passes'. 'Artic1~ 2 ptes-
cribes tb.at'freedorri of Vransit shall be granted under the terms of ..;.,.....
this· Convention for traffic .in transit ·and means· -of trahsport ..
Traffic in transit is to .be facilitated on routes in use mutually
D . acceptable for transit to the Contracting States concerned. No
I
d:;:::rimin1tio~ is to b~ ex~rcised based on the 'Place of origin
d~parture, entry, exit or destinatiOn or·any <;ircumstances relating to
· the ow~ership of the goods or' the ownership, place of registration or
fiag of y~ssel~, l~nd v~hicles or other nieans of transport used. Art. 3 ~- "
provides for exempt~on of Traffic in Transit from customs duties or
E . import or exp~rt taxes or any speciai dues' in respect or' transit, within'
the transit St~te .. Art. 4 refers to means of transport and tariffs. AP;. sJ
refers to methods and dorumenta~ion in regard to customs. trano;port,
· ect. Art. 6 refers to storage ?f goodS in transit. Art. 7 refers to d~lays
or difficulties in 'traffic ih trl:'..nsit. Art. 8 refers to free zones.or other '
:~ customs facilities. Art. 9 refers t~ provision of greater facilities. All' ¥"' _
F that we need mention about Articles 4 to 9 is that details have neces-
~ sarily to be worked out by mutual agreement. Art. 10 refers to relation
to most favourecl.:__nation clause. Art. 11 refers f9 'exceptionns to
Convention' or grounds cf pubtic health, securt,:, and protection. of
• j
v: to
intellectual propeH It is perhaps usefa( extract the whole of Art 11.
• '
"Exceptions ·to Convention on grounds of pub.lic health,
secW'ity, an& protection of intellectual property
u- J. No.- -Cont~acting State shall be bund by this' Convention to
afford transit
. to persons whose admission into its terrlto:ty i11 forbiddea,
'
' .
.. ' ¥. - • '' i
~ l H • •
... .. ~ ' .
, .. · . ,.
•. . ., ...
.· .. \ . . . l • . . '
·... ;:
•
· . GRAMOPHONS.CO. ·V. · B.B: -PANDEY (Chimuzppa Reddy, 1.)
• • ~- ••• .: - # '
· ·. '6~1
or for good~ of a kind of,whi~ti the importatio,ri is prohibite~ either
• -~
0
... on grounds of public morals, publi'c health, or security or ·a prec~u- as
.. .;..
I'
tion agairi.st.dis~as~s ·or anim~lS ~r. · plan.ts :or against pest~. - .•
• l
.' ./
·. 2 .. ·Each Contracting State .s hal.l b~ ·entitlect -to take .. reasoqa~le , . · ·... B
'· precautions and measures to ensure that persons and goods,· parttcu
. . · .. Jarly goods which are the subjec't of a in.onopo]y; ··are really in·transit, .
and that the means of transpor't aie. really used for .the·.passage of such- .
.' goods, as 'w~ll as to pr~tect the' safety of the .route.s ' and means of com-· . . -~
- munication. · · · · · · · .. .
• .-
.. l ,
-l . / . ·..· • ·=· .. .·.·c . '.
I ~ '. •
. 3.. Nothing _iti this Convention shall affect the . measures · which
. a Gontracting s·tate ntaY be called upon to take · in pti.rsuance or'provi-.
siori.s in a ,get:leral intern.ational convention, ~hether ~f . a word-wide
or regiomil character ..to which. it is a party, whether· such convention . .
. was already concluded .on .the ·a.ate of this Convention ·or is conclu~.e~. .
later, when s·uch ·provisions relate:
' . '. .
...... .
.··. ."
(a) J to expo~t or
import' or ~ransi·t .of particulAr kinds of a rticles
. such 'as. na.rcotlcs, or' ot\le~ d~ngerous. d.ii;gs,, or a'rins~ .·?r~.
'E · .
/.. . .· , ) . . ,' ! • \ ·, . .
.. .
._.U__. (b) . to .· protection 'of {ndiJstria/, lirel'ary or ·artisti~ pt:operty, oi
protectio~ .o f· trade names; an'd i'ndications ~ of . source or
appellations of orig~ri,._and .the suppression of rlnfair competi-
. .. .
....
ti~
. .
. !
. .I .. . .. o · - • •
• 4. Nothing in this Convention shall prevent any- ContractinJ;
'l . ·state from taking ~JlY action necessary for the protedlon of its essential
. . . ~security interests';: Art. '12 refers .t9 exceptions in case of . emergen~y. · , ." .
' Art. 13 refers to application ofthe. Cori.venti~n in_time ofwar.'·Art. 14 .. {,~G
.. refers to obligations under ·the Convention and ri~ts. and · d~ties of · . .I
.. .
· United Nations Member.s .. Art. is,i'efers,to :reciprocity. Art. 16 refer's . ...
(
·
.~ of
. . · to· settlement disputes. Art . .17 .refers to signature. Art. 18 . refers to ...
. "' .:: ratification. .Art. 19 refers. to accession.. A~!· _20 _refers cntr;y in to . · · ,, .to
· (force. Art. ~~ refers to revision. Art. 22 rtfers to .notifications by the · . · H
.Secrctary.:._oc~eral. And Art. -23 ·referi to a\ltltentic. texts . .. · ·
'· .
, , . .. ·~~· ·, ;.... I.
\
'.
. ·' · .. . ·~ '),, . \ .
\. ' .l' .
678 I'
L • ' I
A ·I lis thus seen that the Convention while' proviJ.inr; for freedom
of transit for the pas~a9e of goods between a land~locked State and .\--
1
· . the sea, across tile territory of a transit .State emphasizes the need fer
.. agreem~nt betw~ell. the land-locked country and the transit country .
and, more important for our present purposes, · ;t -spe,cificcs- certain
exceptions. It is indeed remarkable that the Convention places traffic
B (illicit) in incLli.~trial, literary or artistic property on the, same footing
as traffic in narcotics,- d:1.ngen.~us dmgs and afms. This..opinicn of the
. :Int':':rn'l.ti~n.al C9mmunity as revealed by the convention must tie borne
·In my mind in our~ further consideration of the question. It \rna} be 1
·. I ' •.
• interesting to notice her~ wb?..t John H.E: Pried, who. respresented the
Government of Nepal as ~ne of the members ·of the delei.ation at the
c U.N. Conference which produced the Convention, has to sal about
these exceptions. Ip an article which "he wrote in the Indian Toumal
.
of lntetnational·law; ·l)c . st1:d,:
~
~ "The test of a trcPi.ty ~are its exceptions. The proof of a ~ ··
D ·treaty puctding.is, when it cannot be eaten: It·is the old problem
offi.njing a balance b~twecn demands for saving clauses,and the
o.rposite ~[aim that the very value of a treaty depends on its .
reliability. For land locked States, conditions unrler whi~h their
outlet t<;> the outsi9,e world ·may be curtailed can of course be
cruciaL - -~·- ·•
I E
The Con.vent~on. declares exceptions permissible for five rt;asons J ·
(1) c~rtain wdl_:_specified reasons of public policy; (2) because of .
overriding int~rnational oblig3.tions; · (3) emergency in the ·country of .
F . ..
transit; (4) in· case of war: (5) protectionofitsessential security interests.
\ . . / . . ,..
. . ·. r
.
-.
. \ ' '
r
- A few words about each, in view of. theire extraordinary impor-
tance.
" G 1. · Exceptions for reasons of public policy. The State of transit ·
may:-this .is permi,ss'ive; not .obligatory_:_proliibit transit of certain
goods fqr the reason thaftheir import into its ~wn territ~ry is prchiti- ·...,c.. ..
te<.. , namely (Art 11: Pll!"a I): · · ·
H .. ~
{a) grount.~ of public morals_:_ e.&., indecent literature; ,,,
,.. / .
•/ . ;
,. .
..
GRAMOPHONE CO. ·v. n.b. PANDEY (C/timw;pa Reddy, J.) 679
(b)· on grounds· of p~blic ~v;~~lth or public •,securi{,y; (t.g., con- A ' --·
~ .. '. ' . . / '
taminated foon ?f improperlv_packed explo~ives); ·
1
r'
I.
.. '
(c) · as precaution against ariima1_ diseases plant diseases or pests._
. ·• . ' . .. I
Tills clause (dubbed at the Cc~n.fe_rence as the "dirty' pictur~;s and
rotten fish -cla~se") w:ill not :hamp~r international trade if properly
... ~-.
·applied. ·
:~ 2. The_ same can be pto~a~r~. s~id
of the ''measiues\.Vhich a
Contracting State .may be called u'po11 to take. ("poritetre ~mena a .'C
prendre~· in the .~qually authentic _'.French ve_rsion· which is scveT~tl
nic{es t@ss per_missiv<!) in obedience to certain international treaties'
to which it is a -party, namely,
: . . treaty provisions. relating
,
·to
. . '
(a) "export, imjJOrt or (i) transit of particular kjnd~ of articles. ·D.
such as· narcotics. or other dangero1Js drugs, or arm1i"-
(As to arms .this would therefor~ o1ily be~011?-e operative if··
, a wor1dwid~ or n~gional -treaty prohibiting or_ restric;ting ·
international arms trad~ existed).. · ~
I ~ ' ' · r ' "'- •
•.
(b) "protecti~n 9! industrial, literary 9r artistic property, or
.
.L.
- .
protection of trade names", and. the like
)
~-
.These provisions· are ~;tewirthy because they permit ih'e ·'
Stat,es of transit t? enforce:. say a coyy-right trade"mark COil~. or F
vention even ~f. for example,'tieither the country of origin nqr of
i~st~nation itS party to it......... :: ....... :·...... :...... , .. , .... :........... .
Far as tl1ese provision~ go,'.transit traffic must not be hampered
... for any ot~er reason o(public po1icy· of _the State of transit. If-
that
.
Stat~ forbids importation of cer'tain luxury goons ·I
for
..
:fi.nan- .
cial reasons; or of certain textiles to protect it~ own spinning
im!ustry, that is, economic reasons, or of shorh~ave radios for,
___ ;J.~ political reasons..::_all such goods must still ·'be p~rmitted to pass.
through its territory.
I .
' ·. H
3.. Qualified. Emer&e~q ... .-...... ..... .' ....... ~ .. : ................ : ....... : >,
• ·'
• ·'·
.\.
•'
680 SUpREME. COURT · ltBPORTS. [1984] 2 s.C:k.
A 4. .War.: ......................... ~ ...... :..... :.: .............................. .
.\--
'·
). .Protection of essential se~Jrity interests ....... : .. , ...•.. : ·
B We may now take a look at the treaties with our neighbour Nepal
·and the P.rotoco1s. First,. the 'Treaty of Trade' which was contracted
"in ()fder to e~pand trade between their respective territories and
encoUrage collaboratio·1 in economic dev~l.opment". Art. 2 stipulates
1
that the .contracting parties shall endeavour-to grant maximum facili-
t'ies and to undertake an
necessary measures for the free and unha~- -.--
c pered fl..ow of gopds, nee(ied by one country from the other, to and -
from their respective territories. Art. J enjoins the contracting parties
:to. accord unconditionally to eac'h ·other treatment no less • favourable
. than that accorded to any third country with fespect t.o (a) customs
duties and charges of any kind impo'scd on,.or in connection with im- .
_porta.tion and exportation and-(b) import regulations including quanti-
D ta1ive restricti9ns.· Art. 4 provides that the c~ntracting parties should,
on a reciprocal basis,. exempt from basic customs 'duty as well as from
.quantit.'ltive restrictions t'he import of such ·primary products
'·as may be mutually agreed upon, from each other. Art. 8 casts. 'duty a
on the ~ntracting parties to cooperate effectively with ea.ch other t9
p.reve'nt !nfringement and circumvention of the laws, rul,p and regula-
G tions of either country in regard to the matters relating to . foreign
yxchange and foreign trade. Art. 9 specially pr9vides that "Q.Otwith-
standing "tile earlier provisions of the treaty either Contracting Par~y ~
1ruiy maintain or introduce such restrictions as are necessary for the ;;
purpose of ' ·
F ·•
(a) prOtecting pu~lic morals,
' . '-.J
(b) Protectin& hlllll3.n, animal and plant life,
G ·,
...
' (c) Safeprdhl.g national treasures,
ll (d) · ·safeguarding the implementation of law~ reiating to the
.,
,'
,· iaport nd export of jOld and silver bullion, .· and
•
: .. :- ... ~:.;_;. • : > • :. ..;;- -~ ~ ' ¥_a.1 •
• + · / •
'•' ~- ,• \ ·~ ...... .-
'- ' > ~. '·
. - ... " <' ·' '·!
. .:' ~
, I I ~ ~,
' "
. ...J (e) '' safeguarding such othecititere~;ts as may be mut~lly agreed
· . upon. ., i
• Article (to)·whiCh may be extracted in full is as follows: "Nothing·
in this Treaty shall prevent either COntractin~ Party from taking· any· ·"
.measures which may be necessary.for the protection of its essential
·s~curity i'nt~rdts or i~ pursuance. of general international convention~; u··
·• whet~r alfeady in ex:i~tence or c~nclude4 hereafter, to which it is a
. party relating tO. transit, ~xport or import of particular kinds' of articles··
, . s'uch as opiu:n or other dangerous drugs or in. pursuance of-general .,
·. conventions inter.de1'to ·prevent ilifringement of industrial, litefa,ry or
7'__ .. artistic.property or.relathig. to false marks, falseindicaticn1~of·ori,in- ·
' or other method!) of urifair conipetitionn. ' ' . .C '
' . ·.
··, ",\
' ' ' ., ' ,'
• 4 • ••
.... ' ·It ~ppean to·· us. that th~ TreatY. of Trade. ~oncern~d itself with
··:.r.· trade between II}dia·and·Nepal and· not with trade between Nepal arid
other cottntries. The provisions retating to iplport, export, transit and ,
the fr·~e 'and' unhampered .fiow of goods refer to the import and the .
e~port from one country to anothe~ i.e . .from India to .Nepal and from '
Nepal. to. India and to .the tr~n.Si_t ~nd the .and unhampered flow 'o f . rree
goods in the course of trade between the / two countries .. :Even so, .
.. - . express teservati~n is maCf.e to enable each ofthe . countries . .to impose . /
restrictions for certain purposes. and to take lluch measures as imiy be .
' nccessacy for th~ .protection .of essential security 'interests and effectua-
>'ting international conventions r~lating to opium and other dangerous .- '·E.··
.; drugs and also to effectuate "general. crmventions ·intended . t~ pi:~vent ·
----...' ' . infringemeilt of ina!Jstrial, literary. or. drtistiC proptrty or relating to ·
false marks, false indications or 'origin or 'other method's unfair. or
competition". {Art. l 0) <
.'
'
.. . . . . TheTre~ty of Tran~it'is.mo~e rele~a-.t. it, .sc11.eae, .. and 'sequence . .···
and even'the language indicate that it.is based .en the 1965 CONVEN·.
TION ON TRANSit.TRADE OF t.AND-:-LOCKED COUNTRiES.
Th~Prearnble ~t<? the treaty mentions that a_treaty hu. bee~ ~nd~ded.
•recognising that Nepal as a la.nd"'c-lockod country needs access to and
'.' ,,
' - . .from -the: Sea tO promote its intei'IU.tiOnal trade, and ~Ogci8itlg the I,
1
.G·
~
·need •to · facilitate the traffice · 'in tri.usit through. tl!eir territoriea'.
.. 'Triffic i~ Tran;it' and is as follows:
Art: 3 defines ,
./ ~.
~
. I
. ''The tenn 'Traffic in. Transit' means the passa~- of ;9ods In-
cluding. unaccompanied. baggage .a'cross'the.· territory of a . Contr.actin& ... lrl ,..
,'I.Prty when the passa&e ia a protion'_of a coinplet~ jouraey ?.~hca lfepll ·. · '·
. .
' ·. \
·:::\
...., ,~
~· ..
. '
....
682 . 'SUPREMB COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 s.c.R .
or termin·ates within' the tcrritor1 of the other Contracting Party. The \,•
transhipment, ·warehousing. breaking bulk a~d change in the mode of
transport of such goods as well as the assembly or reassembly of machi-
.· nery and .onlky glclds slull ngt render the passage of goods cutsid.e the
it1,'!fi.nition of "traffic in transit"· provided any such operation is·
u'ndertaken ~olely for_.,the convenience.. of transportation. Nothing .in
B ..the Article shall be construed as imposing an obligation· on eithe.r Con-
trac_ting P~n:ty to e;stablish or. permit 'the· establishment of •permanent
facilities on its territory for ·such assembly, dis-assembly, or · re-
,assembly"; · -
c
~ .r . . . •
in
- Art.l requires the Contracting Parties to accord '7raffic Transit'
freedom of transit across their respective territories through routes
-
mutually agreed upon maki~g no destination 'based on
flag of· vesels
the places of origin: departure entry, exi( _desti'nation, ownership· o(
goods:or ves~els.. . . .
D
Ai:t. 4 exempts Traffic in Tra~sit from .customs duties and trails-.
it duties or other charges except reasonabie · charges for transporta~ ·
tion and such other charges as are·. commensurate -with the .costs of
services rendcrc·& in respect of such' transit. . ·
E . Parties to provide, for
·:Art. 5 requires ea~h of th~ Contracting -
the convenience of traffic in transit,. warehouses or sheds, for the
'storage: of traffic in tr~nsit awahing customs .clearance before onward
transmission.
( .
I .
Art. 6 stipulates that Traffic in Transit shall • be subject to the
.procedur~ laid down in the Protocol, Articles 8 and 9 correspond to
the ·provisions of Articles 11; 12·and 13 'of the 1965 CONV~NTION
ON TRANSIT TRADE· OF LAND-LOCKED STATES and are
similar to Article 9 ~nd 5 to 10 of the Treaty of Trade and reserve .the
G right of each of the. contracting p;.trties to 'impose restrictions for
certain. purposes and 'take measures ·in connection with certain inter- '
ests. ·In particular Art. 9 mentions that nothing. in the treaty shall
preveiJ,t either ~ontractihg Party from taking any meas.ure· which
....
' .
may be
n~cessary in _.pursuance of general conventions· intended to
prevent infringement ofindustrial, literary or artistic property' or r~lat
ing to false mark_§, false indications of ori~in or other. m~thods of A
1 . If
:..._.
' )
/
' ' ' ' - ' ........ ' . ' ' ' ·',
GRAMOPHONE
''
unfair competition.
co.- v. B.B. PANDEY (Chinnppa
'
fteddy,1),\ · 683 ' .
.A
' ' .
. • .'
'I
The protoc~l arinexeq to the Treaty of Transit contains ·a ·
detailed ·procedure fo'r the t~anSit Of gOOdS aCfQSS the territory
- ' ' ' ' ,,
of India en-route from , the Pcirt · of CalcJitta. to their Nepalese /
'
destination.· . The .Protocol · c,oritains · detailed . provisions· · t~ · .'
' . '
'I
B:
ensure the goods reaching Nepal and to: prevent tl1e contingency. of
the goods escaping into the Iildian market whiie Oll the way to Nepal. /
' '' ' •' ' ~'-· ' r .,.
While the Treaty of Trade generally g~arantees to 'each of the '
Contracting Pa.rti~s the free· and .unhampered flo~ of goods needed c
·. by one-country from tl1e other, the Tre:a ty of Transit generally guaran- .
. tees to each 'of the Coiitracting Parties freedom o'ftransi.t across the
territcry of the other Contra~ting Party in respect of 'goods which
have 'to pass through the territory of sucl1 other Contracting party to.
·. rea,ch the first Contracting- Party .·from· o~tside tl1e -territory of the r
second Contracting Party. I~ practice the two treaties.really mean a D
guarantee ~o Nepal ·to permit free and unhaippered· flovt of good~
needed by Nepal froriJ India and a guarantee of freedom of tninsif ..
for goods originating from outside India acro,ss the territory of India ·
to reach ~epal. :. In· the matter of payment of customs duties the ·
. Treaty of Trade provides for the most favourable treatment while the
I.
· Treaty of Transit grants e~cmption from such pay.;nent: Both treaties . , · E ·
--"'----- contain reservatio!l~- ·.there is ·a reservation enabling. the imposi,ti~n ·
of such rest~ictions as are~ necessary for the purpose of protecting
public ,morals, human, animal, -~md ' plant life, safeguarding'.
national· treasures,. the implementation ' of l<~ ws . relating to the
impcirt and export of gold arid silver bullion and the·.safeguarding of
other ' mutually agreed ·interest~. ·'there is ·an express reservation for
-~
the 'protection of .essential sec.urity interests. is also provision There
for ne,ces~ary mcasui-~s in pursuan.ce 'Of general international conven-
tions ~el~ti1}g to transit, export oi: import ·of articles such as opium
or. other dangerous drugS. There. is further _pr~vision for taking
·necessary mea'sures in' pursuance of general conventions .intended 'to
prevent ipfringment o.f industrial, literary and· · ~rti~tic ·pfope:r:tY or G
· · relating to false marks, f<llse indicatio"ns of origin· or other met~ods
of unfair co-mPetition. So, the two treaties _...generally :assure to Nepal
the free and unhampere<:L flow from India· 1and . freed01_n· of transit
.... acros~ India, , to goods or of ·goods :which we may. say _in the · broad
'• . .'way are not res extra commercium. In particular "the treaties expres- ·H
sly contain res~rvati(?ns enabling each of the contracting parties to
'-..._
~ t • i .~
:.
,. '
l.
, '
.
.
A-
684 ~UPREME
•
COURT ltEPORn
. ~
[1984] 2 S;C.R.
' take measures in pursuance of general convei1tions for the protection
of industrial, literary and artistic property.
So we have it that Art. 11 of the 1965 CONVENTION ON
TRANSIT .TRADE. OF LAND-LOCKED STATES, Art. 10 of .,
·n the Treaty ;f Trade and Art. 9· of the' T(eaty .of Transit -contain
exceptions to protect ''industrial, ·literary or artistic property" and
to prcv1~nt "false marks, false indications.-of origiH or other methods
of unfair con1petition", pursuant to generat conventions.. Neither the ·
International C?nvez1tion of 1965-.nor the Treaties between the two
. nation~ prohibit th~ imposing 'of restrictions for this purpose. On the
c .. other 'h"lnd, tb.ey· contain reservations to the contrary. So great is the
concern of the Inrernational Corqmunity for industrial, literary or
artistic property that the Convention on Tra.nsit. Trade of Land-
lock~d .Countries views traffic ·in this kind of property with the ...,. '·
' same gravity as it views traffic in narcotics, dangerous drugs and arms._
So, the Convention on Transit Trade of Land-locked .states and·
D the Treaties between the two countries, leave either country free to
impose necessry restrictions for th(J_purpose of protecting industrial,
lit~rary or-artistic prop~rty and preventing false marks, f~Ise indica-
tioJ'ts of origin or other methods of unfair competitions in order -f.O
furtt1er other general converitions.. It is clear that for this purnose,
it is "n8t necessary that the land-:locked "conntry should be a party
E to the general Convention along with the transit country. The inter·
pretation placed by John H.E. Fr~d that .the provisions of the 1965
Conv~ntion.permit the States of transit to enforce, sa/ a Copyright_
or. tra<,ie mark convention even if, for example, neither "the country
. of •origin . nor of destination is. part1 to it appears to us to be a
corr~ct interpretation.
F ·'-·.
. The next step for us to consider is whether there is any gener~l
C~nvention ~ Copyright. An artisti~,. ,literary or musical work is
th'! brain-child of its author, the fruit of his labour, and, so, considered·
t~ ·be his property. So highly is it prized by· a\1 civilised. nations that ·
G it is thought worthy of prote~tion by national laws and _international
..
C)nventions relating· to Copyright. The Internationaf Convention
for the 'protection of literary or artistic works first signed at Berne on
9th . September, 1886, was revised at. Berlin in 1908, at Rome in
1928, at Brussels in 1948, at Stockholm in 1967 and fi:Q.ally at J?;::ris-
H . in 1971. . Art. 1 of the Convention, as revised, constitutesr the \.·couritr;es
. ,
to which the Convention ·applie~ into a Union for the protection of
. j
1
... - • • - ., • """ I'"•' .... " ' - ·,r. ~
~~-.
·· ~· '. . .... ',
·'.
1 .
. ..
. '.
· GRAMOPHONE CO. v, B. B. PAt;_DEY (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) GaS;,
! .
the'rights ofnth~rs.iu theirlitcrary' and artisticJwork.s>_ Th~ expression · A
'litera~ and. artistic ~orks'., is'· defined to include every production in
the literary, ·scientific and artistic c;!.~main whatever ~ay be the ino4e :
of.
or formation its expression. His P,Tovideclthat thc.work shall enjoy· . . .
-' · 'pr9tection ·in· all countri~s of the Unioi1. Variq.us d<;taikd pr,ovisions~
are rilade in the Convention for the protection of the wori.s. Art. 9 pro:
or
. vides that" authors literary and artistic 'vorks protected by the·conven~ B
.... ....
- , . tion . shali enjoy
. . .
the exclusive right o.f authorising the 'reproduction
.
of these
works i~· any manner or form. It is also expressly stipulated that any"' .
'
..
'•
as
: sound or visual recording. shall be c'onsidcred . . a 'reproduction for
· _....-l\lfhe purposes ·of the Convention: We arc not really conceined· with
. the several details of the Convention. B].lt'we may refer t~ 'Art. 16 whiCh
· provides: · · C·
''1. Jnfr{ngi~g CO.J?ies o/ a wor.k• shall be liable to: seizltre in
. any CO!Irltry of the Union
. where
'
the work enjoy
. .,
'iegalprotectioi£;. . '
., D ' '...
2. The provisions of the pr~ceding. ;aragraph~ -sha'll ,. also apply
to repi'od$1ction.S comi~tg from a country 1vhere the work is not protecte~
. or.has ce:tsed to ~e-profected. . ..... . . .
~. ot . ,. .. ~ . . • '
· 3. Th~· seizure shall take place in ·accordance w~th the Legisia-· . E·
--'--#on of each co~ntry'': India we may mention .is a parfy to the-Befne
· Convention. · ·
The '·Universal
..
Copyr.ight
.
c6nv~ntion whi.ch
~ .
wa·s . first· sigt{ed ,,
il .
In
. •.G~neva on September 6,'1952 was revised in Paris in 1971. Each Con-
.. ~ tra~tirig State is,called upon to undertake 'to pr;vide for the~ad~uate
and eff":ctive protection 'of the 'right of authors arid ,other, copy-right
'p~operietors in literary, scientific and artistic w<;>rks including writings,
musical, dramatic and' cinematograph '¥,0TkS ~nd paintings, engraving
·~ and sculpture', The ~ights_are to include the exclusive 'right to autho~
rise ·reprod.uction' by l\n,y means: publ~c P.erformance and broadcasting.· 1 G
.~ · ·,Bach 'Contracting State is required to adopt ·such measures as are neces-
sary to ~risure ihe application· of the Convention. The .. Convention.:
I'
· is not in-any way to affect the provisiotl. of the Berp.e Convention
for the' protection of literary 'or aitistic works membership in or
the· Union ·. 2reated by that Convention. The Universal Copyright H
Convention· is. not apJ?li,cable to the. relationships among countrie~t ef
- ~- ""
- ~-:-
. '
.I
'·
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] 2 S.C.R.
'.
'·;
A the 'B~rne Union in ."so far as it relates to. the protection of .·worh ':,...
\
having as their country of origin, within the meaning of the Berne
Convention, a· country of the Berne Union. India is a
sighat01y
to the Unive~sal Copyright convent'ion also.
.. ·
B . • The time i~ now ripe for us to refer to our own Copyright
Act .of 1957. · Section 2(c), (h), (o). · (p), (f). ~d (w) define 'artistic
work', 'dramatic' work',' 'literary work' , 'musical work', 'cinema,to-' .
graph film' .and 'record' respectively .. Sec. 2(y) 'defines '•work" as
mqming. any of th~ following. works,. nam:el~, ~·
c
(i) a literary, dramatic, mmical or artistic works;
.....
(ii) a cinematograph film'; ·
. . /.
(iii) a record. ..
.,
. 'Record' is defiried by s~c. 2(w) to ·mefjn 'any disc. tap~,
perforated roll or other ~evice. in which sounds are· embodied so as
.K.· tn be capable · of being reproduced therefrom, other than a soun(.t ·
tr:1•;k associated with the cln<:!matogruph fiilm. 'Recording' is dcfinc(l J
by Sec. 2(x) to. mdm :·the aggregate of thy sounds_embo.d.ied i'n a:·:(:.
c;'lpable of being repr0duced by means of a ·'record" ..· ~Infrir.ging
· · G;)fJY: ·in relation to a r~cord is
defined 'to rhean; by Sec. 2(m)(iii), .,
'';'tny such . record embodying tM same .recording. lf ·such
F r.:':cord is made or imported in contravention of the provisions of
the'
Act''. Sec. 13(1) states . .th.B.t copyright shall subsist ·through out
India in (a) original, literary, dra~atic, mnsical and artistic. works;
(b) cinematograph films; and (c) records. Sec. 14 explains the
· ~eaning of 'Copyright' in relation to vartous 'works'. In the .case
G
of.,a rec_ord, copyright -is said to mean "the exclusive righ~, by
·virtue of, and subject- to the provisions of, this Act to do or ·
...
authorise the doing of any '0{
the . fonowin& acts by uW!~in~ t11e
record, namely : . · · . · 1 . ·
~. ..... '
'
H , · (i) to ·make any other record embodying the _same recor-
ding;
. i
. "'.
. >
f.
''
'·.
. GRAMOPHONE CO. v. B. B. . Pi\NDEY. (Chinnappa Reddy; J.) 087.
¥. 0
.. (ii) to cause· the recording embodying m the record to be · ·A
~eard in public;
(iii)' to communicate the r~cording embodiep. in the reco'rd.
, • • .
\
. Sections l7 to 2l cical with ··_ownership
,,
·by .t:adio diffusion" (Sec. 14(1)(d).
.
Copyright anrl
•
of
.- ~ •:"'tile· rights of the own::r',t,· Sections 22 to 29-.with •Term of Co11y-
; ·right', Sections 30 to 32 with •Licences',. Sections 33 36 · ,~ith .to
. ~~-Performing· Rights . S~ci~ties': Se'ciions .37 to 39 with. Rights of
~ Broadc'asting Authorities, Sections 40 to 43 with International Co'py- C ··
right and Sections · 44 . to. so'..- ·with Registration . of Co.pvright.
Soetions Sl to 53 d~al with infringe me~t of ·copyright .
. Sec. 51 st~ttes- when ·copyright .in . a ·work shall be deemed · - •
to b; infringed. , In p~rticu1ar Clause (b) states that Copyright D
shall be deemed to be infringed '·when auy person- · •, • ,
. :.:. · (i) . makes for sale ·or hire, or sells or 'lets for , hi·r~,. or by · ·
·· way of trttde di~plays or offers for sale or hire, or·
' .,_
-!
...l.... (ii) di~tributes : either for the purpose of trade or tb su~h
au· extent as to affect·'prejudici!lilY the· owner of.the copyri~ht, or '
"
( • ..·
,;, . . "'. .
(iii) by way'of trade exhibits i~ public, or.-~
-· . ' s •
.. . ~-
,. · .(iv) ·imports (except for the priv'ate and .domestic" use of
tb.!_,J.tnporter) into India, .
G
/'
-~ i,
. \ any infringing copie,s
.,..
~( the work'.
· 'The~e is.a.u
ctxpla~atio~ to which it is not necessary to refer- 'H
'
for. the purpose·s' of this case, ·. • · · " "
. ' - .
'. .
. ..
. J
·,-
- I
.
SUPA'EM!. COURT Rr.PORTS'
·A . · Sec .. 52 . enumerates- t~e acts which shall not constitute an
infring~ment of copyright; Tt is-unnecessary to refer to 'the vario~s
acts enumerated in Sec. 52, it is enough to state that bringing,
· 'into India ::tn infringing wor'k for . the· purpose of transi't t.o Nepal-
or any other '-.Ountry is not one of the e-xcepted acts.
~
B
.
-·• 'Sec. s·3which is ~of direct relevance ~ it deals with ·impoi'·
tation of infringing copies' -needs to be fully· extract~d'. It -says, :
/
.-;.. ·."
. . "53. {l) The Registrar of Copyrights, _on application by th<:-~
owner of the copyright in ·any .work C·f" by this duly authorised agent
. a·n~ on payment of the pre,scribed. fee, n\ay, after making such in •.
_quiry as h~ deems fit, order that · copies made cut of India of tbe ~
work which if mnde in Tnrlia would infringe copyright shall not be
( " •· .
• imported. -. . ; -..,...~
D
. '·
(2) Subject to any rule$ m3.de ·under this Act, the Registrar · '
of Copyrights· or a'ny person authorised by him in this behalf may·
enter any shi'p, dock or premises where any such copies as are refer-
red to in sub-sectiori (l) may be found m1d 'may. examine such
copies ..
E
. . ', \
(3) All copies to which any ~rder made under sub-section(])_)._
. ·,applies shall be· deeiAed to be goods 0f which the import has been
prohibited or. restric.t~d under Sec. 11 of _the Custo;ns Act, 1962, and
all the ~revisions of that Act shall have effect ac9ordingly; .
. ·,
Provided .that all such copie~ confiscated un~er. the'provi;
sions of the said Act shall not vest in th.e Government but shall be -
delivered ~o the. owner of the.. copyright in_ the work. . ·. .....
G
. This provision empowers the Registrar Of Copyrights to make_
.' an order that copies made out of.India of any work which if made
in -India. would· ,infringe Copyright, shall not be "impo-rted: This
"' the Regi_strar may do on the application of the owner of .the Copy-
H _right in 'that work or by his duly authorised -agent on payment of
the pr-~s~ribed fee and· after making such· enquiry, as h~ deems fit.
..
j
·-< .\
·,
GRAMOPHONE co. v. B.B. PANDEY. (Chinnappa·Reddy, J.) 689
. . . . . , . I '
The effect of s~bh an order by the Registrar is to deem all cop.ics to
1
\
which the order applies to he goods of& which the ·import has been
prohibited or. restricted under sec.· 11 of the Custom~ Act, I962,.and
. to attract all the pr~visions !of the Customs ,Act on that basis, inClu-
ding the liability .to be c~~fiscated, with the slight /modification that
.copies confiscated tinder th~ provisions of that Ac{ shall' not vest in
·~ the /Government, but sha!I be delivered'to the 'owner of the (::opy- . B
. . ·/right. . •
· · .' . , , .. The·question is what_dpes the word, 'ilJ1po.rt' mea~ in Sec. 53 .
. ~?f the Copyright Act ? The word is not -defined in the Copyright
. Act though it is defined in the Custom:s Act. . But the' sam~ c
.:\rord may niean different things i:o.' d iffere~t enactn1ents · arid in diffe-·
· . rent contexts. It may even mean differenl things~ at different places
· in the same statute.. It all depends. on the s~nse of the .provision ..
if-...,. wher: it occurs. Reference to. dic.tionaries. is hardly of any av~i1,
. particularly. in the case of words ·of ordinary parlance with a ·varjety .
. of well~knowr meanings.- Sucir words take colour from the ~ontext .. D
. · Appeal to-the Latin·root won't. help. · The'--::.appeal mu~t"be to th.e
sense of the statute. Hidayatullah J in· Burmah Shall ·etc v..
C~mmercial Tax Officerf [1961] ·1 SCR 902 has illustrated how· the
contextuai mea.tiings of the very 'words •import' and ·~~po~t'. may .
..; vary. ,, • \
.E
'
We may look at Sec. 53, rather than elsewhere, to discover
" -:. .
file meaning'~of.
. the word ..'•import". We find that . the meaning is \,
. ~tated in,that pn;>Visic)n itself. If we a~k what is not to be imported, .
. we .find the answer is copies made out of India which· if made in
· India· would 'infringe ·copyright. So it follows ·~hat 'impor~' in the F
provision means bringing int<;> India frO'l'l'i. 0ut of India. That,. we. •, .
see in precisely ho~ import is defined un~er the Cust~!n~, Act.
, Se~. f(23). of the Customs Act, · 1962·, defines ·the . 'Y?rd in this
n~anner ; ·
'. ( ~ :1
G
"Iinport, 'with its gr&mmatical 'variation and ~ognate expres.
..... sio~ means bringing int~"lddia" from a place outside India. But we
• do not propose to have recourse to ·.custo~s Act to interpret ex-.
' · . · pressions in thd Copyright A,ct even if it is permissible io do so .
because Sec. 53 o{the Copyright Act is made; i<? run wi~h Sec,.'ll of. B
the Customs 'Act. / -
\ I .
\
' ·'-
·I
-· 690 SUPREIYfE COURT REPORTS ( [1984) 2 S.C.R
A Tt was submitted by. the learn~ counsel for the. respondent~
that where goods are brought into. the country not for commerce,
put for onward transmission to, another country; there can, in law,-
be n0 importation. If was said that the. object of the Copyright
A.ct was. _to prc~ent_ up~uthorised. reproducti~n of the work_ or t~e .
unautho'nsed explOltahon of the reproduction of a work 111 Indta .
B a.nd this object would not be frustrated if infringing copies of a
work were allowed. ~ransit across· the country. If goods are brought
.,
in, only to go out, there is no .import, it was said. It is diflicult ~-
to agree with this· submission, thoughtit did find favour with the
·Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court,, in the judgment under~
appeal.. In the first place, the' language of Sec, 53 does not justify.
c reading t)1e- words' 'imported for commerce' for the words \
'imparted'. Nor is t!lere ·any reason to assui11:: that such vias ·
.the ohject of the legislature. We ,have , already mentioned
the importance attached by International opinion, as man_ife-
sted by the various International Conventions and Treaties, tQ the
protection of .'Copyright a·nd the gravity with which traffic in
c i'ndustdal, literary o·r artistic proper~y is viewed, treating such tr~ffic
on par with traffic in narcotics, dangero\1s· drugs and . arms. . In
interpreting the word 'itnport' i1i the Copyright Act,· we must take
note that whik the .Positive requirement of the Copyright Conventions
is to protect opyright, negativel:y also, the Transit Trad_e Convention
and the biia,teral Treaty maKe ·exceptions enabling ·the Transit State
E to 1t1k~ m:asu;:e to ·protect Copyright. If this much is horne in
mind, _it becomes clear that the word ';imporr i~ S~c. 53 of the·)__ ,
Copynght Act cannot bear the narrow mterpretatwn ..sought to be-
~ placed upon it to limit it to ini.port for ·commerce, It must be
interpreted in a sense which- >vill fit the Copyright Act into the
setting of the International.Conveutions,
F
- The Calcutta :{light Opurt .thought that goods .may b~ said t6
be imported into the country only if there is an incorporation or.
mixing up of the goods imported wHh the·mass of the property ht
the local area. In other words the High Court ealisd on tge original
G\ package 4octrine' as. enunciated by the Amer.ican Court.·- Reliance·•
was placed by the High Court upon: .the decisi0n of this court· in
the Cenlrallndla Spipning and: Weaving & Manufacturing Co. Ltd; ·J.
1
The. Empress Mills, Nagpur v. The Municipal Committee, Wardha
[1958] SCR 11 02). That was a case which ar0se under the C!P.
fi· and B,erar Municipalities Act and the question was. whether tffe ·
ppwer to ' impose ''a terminal-tax ori.,goods
~ .
or m1imals. imported
. into.
. \
.-.
·G~AMOPHONE
. co.. v. B.B. PANiiEY (Chinnappa R~ddJi.,. j)
691....
o'i· exported fr·;)in. the limit's
'
of
,
a municipality" h1cluded' the right A
..
· to levy tax o;, goods which •wer.e neither' loaded · or unloaded. ai ·
.I ' I .\ vardha but Wi3.iC merely Carried aCrOSS through the llUilicip~J area' .
.··This court sai(t that it did not. The word 'import', it was ·thought'
meant not m~rely the bringing int(; 1J~t caniprised something inorc,'
that is 'i!1corpo.rating and mixing up oftlie goods with the mass of
the property in· the. loca I area', thus acc~pting the enunciation of - U
the 'Orig~hat'Package ~:D-octrinf 1Jy Chief Justice .Marshp/l in Brown ' 'c ··
. v. State of Maryland 6 LEd-. 78. Another reason 'given by the
' learned Judges ' to arrive at t,he conclusion that they .did, was that
. ~the very levy was a 'terminal tax' a:ud,. therefore, the )\'Ords 'i~port
'· and export', in Ute giyen context, had :something. to do with the idea
· of a terminus
. ... i'
and not an• .intermediate
' -
Stage -of a jaurnay.
...,__
We are c
afraid the case is really not' of any guidanc'e to us since in the- con- ·,..'
· / text of a 'te.n~inal tax' th~ ·'Yords ·'imported and. exported; ·could· be
construed in no other manner than was done by the Court. We ·
must how~ver say that'the.~original package doctrine' as enunciated
b'y .ci~ief Justice Marshall on whtch reliance· was pl~ced wa~ expres-·
·.sly. disapproved first BY the FederalCourt intheProvin~e of Madras· . • .!
v. B~ddu Paidanna, [1942] FCR 90 .and again by the ~upreme
Cour~ in State of Bombfy v. F'.N. Balsara, [1951] SCR · 682.·
App~Yently, these decisions .were not broughJto the noticeof ~he court
which decided the case. of Central l1idia Spinning ·and , Weaving and
Mamifactu~ing Co. Ltd. The Empress Mills 'N.apur Muf!icipal Com-
,mittee, Wardha: So
_we d~rive no help from this case.
A~ we said, , E.·
·....~.....:. we prefer to·interpret the words.'import' as it is found in the Copy-.· ~,
· :right Act rather than research. for its meaning by. referring to other · ·
. ' than research statutes where it has been used. : '
' ·. • .,.,.~ . . /
.. ... • . ' ~ i "
I
. The learned co~nsel for the appellant invited.
attention to. _ our
"'. -,t • · Radhakishan v. Union of India : · [1965] 2 S.C.R. 213, Shawhney· .
· ·v . . Syli'anid :and Laxmrm, 77 Born. Ll:t· 380, Bernado v. Collector
F ..
oF Customs A. I.~. 1960 kerala L7:J, to urge that importation . was
complete so. soon as the Customs barrier· was crossed. ·.They are
< ' cases under the ·customs Act and it is need.Je'ss for ·US to seek aid .•
from there when there is enough direct· light under the Copyright
Act and the \iarious ;conventions and treaties which have with the .
subject ''Copyright' from different angles. ·~ e do not al~~.. desire to' .
' .crow our judgm~nt with reference .tc) the history of' the Copyright . • '
• .•u.
and tl~e. Custom~ legislations~ jn the United Kingdom:' atld India as
we do not think It nec'essar~ to do so in this case.\,· ····.. ·. ·,
. . . \ ': •
. ,/" we have, therefore, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion H
that tlie~ word .. 'import' in 'Sees. 51 and 53 of the Copyright Act
') .. • 1'\ . - 't, -fi·
''·
! '
l '692 SUPREMI! COURT REPORTS [19841 2· s.c.R._
.)
A . . · nieans 'bringing into, India from
' .
outside lndia', that it is nqt limited,
. to. importation for c9mmerce oti)Y but ioclu~es importation for
r'
transit. a·~ross ·.the country. Our interpretation, far from being
intonsi_stent with\ any principle of International law, is entirely in
ac'cord with Internationa I • Conventions and , the Treaties between
India and Nepat': · A;1d; that we think is as it should be. ·-
) ' ·, ' ''
We have said that a~ order under Sec. 53 may be made by·
· the R,f)gistrar 9f Copyrights on the application of the owner of the . :- _,
.•
Copyright, but after making such: enquiry as the R~gistrar· deems, . ·• -~
fit. On the order being made the offending copies are deemed to be
goods whose import has been prohibited or restricted· under Sec. 11-~ -·'
of the Customs Act. Thereupon the relevant. provisions of the
c. Customs Act are to apply, with {he difference that confiscated ~opies
shall not vest itl the. ·Government, but ·shall be. delivered to the
owner of the (;-opyright.u One fundamental difference between the na-
ture .of n . Notification · nder Sec. 11 of the Customs Act and an
_. order made under .Sec. 53 of the ,Copyright Act is that the former is
· quasi-legislative ·]n char:acter, while the lattet is · quasi-Ndidal'
D . jn 'character: The quasi-judicial nature of the order made· under ;-
Sec. 53 is further emphasised by the fact ·that an .appeal is provided .
to the Copyright Boar~ against the order. of the Registrar under Sec.
72 of the- Cqpyrigtit Act. We mention the character of the order
' ' ' ' /
undP.r Sec. 53 to indicate that the effect of an order under Sec. 53
·of the Copyright Act is not ·as portentous· as a notification under
E Sec .. 1.1 of the Customs Act. The Registrar is nor' bound to make )'
an order under Sec. 53 df tJ:te Copyright Act so soon as an applica· _ -
tion is presented to him by the owner of the Copyrighc. He has
natw~lly . to consider the . dntext of. the' mischief sought to·
be
prev~~ted. He must consider whether the copies would. infringe the
· · Copyright if the copies wr~re 'illade in India. He must con:~ider.
.F ·lr .... '
whether the ,applicant owns the Copyright or ls the ·duly authorised
agent of the .Copyright. He must. hear th~se tlaiming ·to be affected
·if an order is made and consider any contention that may be put
. , forward as an excuse for the impo,rt. fle may consider ~ny-other
rdevant circum~tan~e. ·Since all legitimate· defences are open and .
• the enquiry _is qu"si-judicial, n'o one canserious]y complain.~.,
In the re!?~lt; the judgment of· the Division Bench is set
aside and tha_t of the learned single judge .restored. There is no.
.order ·as to costs. woe
are grateful to the learned Attorney ,General,
who appeared at our instance, for the assistance given by hhn.
·-'
Fl '
•. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "copyright"Sign in to search