1994 (7) TMI 85 - SC - Customs

Validity of confiscation of books imported by the petitioner from Peoples Republic of China Held that - Considering the petitioner request that his client is entitled to damages/compensation for the illegal seizure and confiscation of the said publications & that he has been disabled from selling the said books which he had purchased at a substantial cost and the said publications have lost their value on account of passage of time and are no longer saleable. People generally do not buy old publications submits the counsel. Though we find some force in the submission we do not have any specific date before us regarding the value of the said books or with reference to their saleability today. We therefore leave the petitioner to work out his remedies at law in a separate proceeding. We however think that he is entitled to substantial costs. Accordingly we allow the writ petition and quash impugned order of confiscation. The petitioner shall be entitled to his costs which we quantify at Rs. 10, 000/-. All the books seized shall be returned to the petitioner forthwith.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of confiscation of imported books.
2. Fundamental right to propagate Marxist thought.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements in issuing show cause notices.
4. Reasonableness and specificity of confiscation orders.
5. Entitlement to damages/compensation for illegal seizure and confiscation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of confiscation of imported books:
The confiscation of books imported by the petitioner from the People's Republic of China was questioned under Article 32 of the Constitution. The books, mainly writings of Mao Zedong, were seized at Bombay and Calcutta Ports for violating various notifications under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The final orders of confiscation were based on Notification No. 77 dated 22nd September 1956, which prohibited the import of materials likely to incite violence or undermine the government.

2. Fundamental right to propagate Marxist thought:
The petitioner argued that he had a fundamental right to propagate Marxist thought as expounded by Lenin and Mao Zedong, asserting that the imported books were not proscribed and did not threaten state security or public order. He invoked his rights under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, claiming that the notifications banning the import of these books violated his fundamental rights.

3. Compliance with procedural requirements in issuing show cause notices:
The petitioner contended that the seven days' time given for filing an explanation was insufficient and requested copies of the notifications, which were not provided. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta, did not address this request. The orders of confiscation were passed without specifying which particular clause of Notification No. 77 was violated by which imported book, rendering the show cause notices and the final orders procedurally deficient.

4. Reasonableness and specificity of confiscation orders:
The confiscation orders were found to be "totally bald and devoid of any findings in terms of Notification No. 77." The orders did not specify which books contained words or representations likely to incite violence or undermine the government. The court emphasized that the orders must specify the offending material to justify confiscation, particularly when fundamental rights are at stake. The lack of specificity and the casual manner in which the matter was handled vitiated the action taken.

5. Entitlement to damages/compensation for illegal seizure and confiscation:
The petitioner sought damages/compensation for the illegal seizure and confiscation, arguing that the books had lost their value over time and were no longer saleable. While the court acknowledged the force of this submission, it did not have specific data regarding the value or saleability of the books. The petitioner was advised to pursue remedies in a separate proceeding. However, the court awarded substantial costs to the petitioner, quantified at Rs. 10,000/-, and ordered the return of all seized books forthwith.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders of confiscation were quashed. The court underscored the importance of freedom of thought and expression, condemning attempts at thought control in a democratic society. The petitioner was awarded costs and entitled to the return of the seized books.

← Previous Next →