# [1984] 2 S.C.R. 664

- **Citation:** [1984] 2 S.C.R. 664
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1984
- **Bench:** 0. Chinmappa Reddy, E.S. Yenkataramiah A..'Id R.B.Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1984-2-s-c-r-664-8714
- **Pages:** 29

## Headnote

'
.
'
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
m~ipa} ltD!ui~Whtt!Je~ OoemQt mwt/cipa~ {uw /fl COIC of c~l!/ffct.
/ltter~~atlona{ Law-Rule rttardill¥ ri¥1tl of land: locked states of innoctnl
I''"Ml¥' of too<h acr;ss a'fiOthtr state.
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
rnrct 111 dlctlonar/n of 110 tZYI/,
• ·
•
•
lly trea;~ and by inlematiooal convcntibn. lndia allo;,.,s transit fac!liti~
to Nepal, ha lltlJ.'lbour and a land-locked country.
A companY bouc:d 111
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
• ..
. J
.
'
'•
. ____..
·.
(
/
"· ' .
..
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 Registrar~ 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·
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 : .
_(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). ;,bat js
the meaning of the,\\ ord 'i~poll' usco_ in s53 ·of the Copyright Act.
'lo..o~~.
'
• •
•
:-~
~ '
•
i
~
.
..··,
.. I.,
Allowing. the ap{>eal,
. I
HELD:
...
- .
. ;:: 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
. integrit-Y. of the republic 11nd the Sl!pe~acy -~f- tho c<institut~ legislatures in
c
·D
E
., F
H
B
.c
D
E
F
G
H
. I
· ~.
6&6
SUPRI!MB COUltT R

## Text

_Characters 0–39,917 of 76,370. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39917 for what follows._

. ,
I.
B
c
D
E
F
G
•.
'GRAMOPHONE ·coMPANY OF IN~IA LTD.
:,.
-J v.
B!R.ENDRA BAHADUR PANDEY & . ORS.
Ftbraury 21 ,' '1984
.
'
}
.
[0. CHINMAPPA REDDY, E.S. YENKATARAMIAH A..'ID R.B.MISRA, JJ.j
'
.
'
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
m~ipa} ltD!ui~Whtt!Je~ OoemQt mwt/cipa~ {uw /fl COIC of c~l!/ffct.
/ltter~~atlona{ Law-Rule rttardill¥ ri¥1tl of land: locked states of innoctnl
I''"Ml¥' of too<h acr;ss a'fiOthtr state.
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
rnrct 111 dlctlonar/n of 110 tZYI/,
• ·
•
•
lly trea;~ and by inlematiooal convcntibn. lndia allo;,.,s transit fac!liti~
to Nepal, ha lltlJ.'lbour and a land-locked country.
A companY bouc:d 111
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
• ..
. J
.
'
'•
. ____..
·.
(
/
"· ' .
..
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 Registrar~ 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·
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 : .
_(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). ;,bat js
the meaning of the,\\ ord 'i~poll' usco_ in s53 ·of the Copyright Act.
'lo..o~~.
'
• •
•
:-~
~ '
•
i
~
.
..··,
.. I.,
Allowing. the ap{>eal,
. I
HELD:
...
- .
. ;:: 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
. integrit-Y. of the republic 11nd the Sl!pe~acy -~f- tho c<institut~ legislatures in
c
·D
E
., F
H
B
.c
D
E
F
G
H
. 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
.
.
th
..
th
hI
f '
OClnllCof
incof110r&t;on also rccoen•ses
e post !too
at t 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.
•
•
• • 1 r ·
· '
Y ''"
if Parliament bas satd no to a pnnctp c o
tnlemauonal law. National conn,
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 llllmicipal 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
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
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).
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
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 ~
ri&hl on aaroement. 1bc most recent I96S ConvrJ)UtJD on Tran.iit Ttsde .
0
' • 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 . ~
•areement bc.twccn the land-locked country and the tr.IDsit c:<Juntry. The b•~.t ·
T
r
· nJ l"e1111
re&ty o Trade anJ Tn::aty of Transit entered Into bo:tween lmha •
1~
ord 1
d
•uartotco
•r 0 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
or Ut!d-lotL-d <'
·-
lt:a\'0 V
.
"" »tltet and the Treaties tJ.:t"een the two tuuntn.-•
. d
~.r,
f
. ,. ~~'"'"'
C<>ufttry r• to j-~ -ary r~trictions ror tho pufl)OM of protcctJOI
, -·-.
... -1,
'·
... ..
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- ·
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,
neither the country of origin no; of destination is '~)arty to it appears to be (correct .
'
.,
. .
.
.
. ,
.
.
_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
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~ eontracting st;Hes to provi4c for .the adequate and cff(l\:tive Protection of the rights of··
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
.··: ~ ·':
' . . .
A
.8
c
D
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 at different •·
. 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 .
"V
r· .
. ~,.
. from the context. Appeal·to the Latin root won't help. The ~ppealJLmust .be io ~lie
• "
•
•
•
r
.. sens~·or the statute. [~89 ~fl
·
,. ·
- ~
,
Thesubmission tbatwhere!fga'ods are~ ( brougbt ·into 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.words 'imported for commerce' for ttic words •imported; N~r ia
there any reason to assume that such was the ob.iect of tthe legislature: While-inter-. .!'
pre~~ tbc ~ords ' import' in ~he Copyright Act, o~e must take [note that while fbe,A
.PeStive requiremeilt a( the Copyright Converitions·:is to pu)icct cop)·ligl.t, .negatively
.. .
.
..
.
.
'
. G ~ .
:
..
ft
A
B
•
D
:E ·.
\
F
G
H
r
..
..
·('
...
668
SUPREME COURT RBPORT~
[1984] 2 S.C.R.
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 bornein 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]
'.
•
•
• •
•
~ ••
<
• ·'.
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 interpretation, 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 o?ly if there is an ineorPoration. or mixing ·up of tht good~ imported
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
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
limit• of a 'munlcipaljty'; included -tho right to levy· tax on goods .which 'were".
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. sin'ce ·.
~
..
'
. .
0
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
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
· Registrar is not boun4 to make an order under s: 53 of the Copyright Act so soon
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
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
all legitimate defence's are upen and the~ enquiry is quasi-judici.al, :no one can
s&riottsly 80J!tplain. [692'1'!-01
..
--~-
(
>-. .rC
· ...
,.
'
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:
/
,.
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.
'
.
.
/'
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. v ..
J..i;;::__J Subba J?.ao in response to notice. .
.·
·
4
.
•
.
. .
'
t-
..
"
_
'G.S. Sanghi,. Shankar ·Mitra and P. Sinha for Intervener-:-
' '
D
.E
. -"!
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
.
.
.
.
~
-
questions before us iii t~e·extent of this right :Does the right 'cov~r the
••
H
, .
A
.,
·B
c
E
F
G
H
670
~tfPRiiMll COUU RBPORT~
[19~4} :G s.C.R.
'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·
bodying an ~nauthorised recording of a record (which, for short, ~dopt
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.
.
.
,..
.
.
/
.
•..
. ' .. •·
.
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
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.,
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
· ·in the Government, but to be deli~e'r<'d to 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
'the nature :of ~andamus to compel ~e Rrgi&tar:::r to p..ss rn. appropriate 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.
.
.
.
.
.
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 permitt1ing 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 ·
'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 of th~ cassettes held back by
the appellant being found not to inf~inge · any provision of the Copyright Act,, ~he appellant was to pay damages as· assessed by. the GOurt. '.
Against the learp.ed s1ng1c Judge's order, the. consignee preferm1 a_n
I
appeal und'er daus'e. 15 of 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··,
. 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
;
petition· filed by the. present appellant ·was dismissed . .:.And so, the
--~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
A
: <
.B
c
·D
E
I~ w or if the ruk's of international law afford us any guidance and if
F
such mandate or guidance is preceptive ·under· indian law. Two questions 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 •
• [1-977(1) All ~.R. 881] .
H
r
.·
A
B
.
·C
D
. I
F
I
'·
972
SUPREMI COURT REPORTS .
[1984] 2 s;c.R.
~-
. 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
• 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
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:
.•
.
:"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,
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·-
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 enacting Art. 24 of the German Code of Civil Procedure". Lauterpacht
. refers to another German case -.where the argument that 'there ought '
,not to be a. direct recourse to 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.en adopted by German Customary Iaw, lacks foundation in law. Such a legal maxim would, more-
(2) [1905 8 KB. 391
- \
'
.. -:.-
.....
: ... - ~
•
~ +
•• -
•
: ,..
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:
. ....;
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
1position, this way!..:_
'
.
.
.
. "While it is clear that inter~ational law may and d'oes
ac't dlrectly)within the St.ate, it is equally clear that as a rule~that
. .,:......
) . . 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
· 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" ..
. '
\
l .
. . There can be no q~estion that. ~ations ·~ust ~a-r~h . with·; the
- 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
·- ::. ·"
i-:
. A
. '-
'·ti B .
c
-D
.. " ·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 ..
_ , -..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
E
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 no, MunicipaLLaw must . · .
. ,
. 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 to' avoi4o
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
yi~Id.
..
.
J.
.
•
.
.
·._·' ,'
·-.. ' ...
H
. •·
.,.
~-..
.
-.fl '
/
A
8
c
D
F
..
_..
674
SUPJlEMI COU!tT ~RI3P01l"J;'S
(
. [1984] 2 s.c.R.
~-.
Tl1e proposition has b~en well sta:ted by Latham CJ in Politics r.
The Cominonwealt!z111 :
~
"Every statute is to be interpreted imd applied, as far' 'as
·its language admits, as not to' -be inconsistent with the comity
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.·
.
~
.
.
· 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
The Supreme Court of fndia has· s~id practicaHy the same thing
tFf
'
t2)
in Hnetorotxport, Mascowv. M/s Taraprrre & Company and Anr.
"Now; q.s stated in Halsboury's La.ws of England, Vol .. 36,
•I
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
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
H
,,
·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 '
. '( '
(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.
•
· 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 innocentr p..~ssage of :
'pods acmss the soil ;of aJlOthe~ State?. Tt appears that "the leading
·.~
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
A
I
B
,, .
. 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 on the one. Iiand it raises a / "'
•
•
j
•
•
•
•
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 discol;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 term '!~nd~lock.ed State~' as meat~i~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
' Trade Law .. Vol. o4 .Pa~:e ?4.
' .
. · . .
G
H
i .
.
. '
-.
•.
A
D
E
F
u-
'.
' 676
SUPREME COURT REPORTS. t .
[1984] 2 S.C;R.
f
· ~ 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 ptescribes 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
. acceptable for transit I to the Contracting States concerned.
No
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
. 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' ¥"' _
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
intellectual propeH v: It is perhaps usefa( to extract the whole of Art 11.
•
j
•
'
"Exceptions ·to Convention on grounds of pub.lic health,
secW'ity, an& protection of intellectual property
J. No.- -Cont~acting State shall be bund by this' Convention to
afford transit to persons whose admission into its terrlto:ty i11 forbiddea,
.
'
' .
..
~ l
-~
•
0
. '
'·
. . · ..
. '
' ¥. - • '' H
•
• i
... .. ~ ' .
, .. · .
,.
• . .
., ...
. ·
.. \ .
.
. 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
... on grounds of public morals, publi'c health, or security or as ·a prec~ution 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-·.
. -~
· ... ;:
I'
.. . ; ..
..
-
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 articles
."
. 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~ .of· 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 · .
· United Nations Member.s .. Art. is,i'efers,to:reciprocity. Art. 16 refer's .
. . · to· settlement of disputes. Art . .17 .refers to signature. Art. 18. refers to ...
. "' .::ratification . . Art. 19 refers. to accession.. A~!· _20 _refers .to cntr;y in 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. ..
·
·
'·
.
,, . ..
·~~· ·,
;....
\
' .
' .l' .
. ·~ '),, . \ .
, ." .
.I
. . . ...
I .
A
B
c
~
D
I
E
F
" G
678
L
•
'
I
·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
· . 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
(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
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,:
.
.
I'
~
"The test of a trcPi.ty ~are its exceptions. The proof of a ~
· ·
·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.