TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (7) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. As many as sixteen show cause notices were issued by both the authorities put together. On receipt of show cause notices, the petitioner wrote to them protesting about the mere seven days' time given to him for filing his explanation. He wanted at least a month's time for submitting his explanation. He submitted further that the Notifications referred to in the show cause notices were not available to a layman like him and requested for supply of copies thereof. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta replied to him stating that he has little option in the matter in view of the statutory notifications and that it is open to the petitioner to make a personal representation, if he so desires. He, however, made no reference to the request of the petitioner for supply of copies of the notifications. Thereafter, orders of confiscation were passed holding that the import of the said books is in violation of the Notification No. 77 dated 22nd September, 1956. The final orders do not say that any other notification was violated. Complaining against the said orders, the petitioner approached this Court in the year 1979. Though the disposal o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of overthrowing or undermining the Government established by law in India or in any State thereof or its authority in area; or (ii) incite or encourage any person to commit murder, sabotage or any offence involving violence; or (iii) incite or encourage any person to interfere with the supply and distribution of food or other essential commodities or with essential services; or (iv) seduce any member of any of the armed forces of the Union or of the Police forces from his allegiance or his duties or prejudice to the recruiting of persons to serve in any such forces or prejudice the discipline of any such forces; or (v) promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different sections of the people of India; or which (vi) are grossly indecent or are scurrilous or obscene or intended for black- mail." 5. We may now notice the final orders of confiscation. One of the orders passed by the Collector of Customs, Calcutta on April 17, 1979, is filed as an annexure to the writ petition. It reads as follows : "Subject :- Detained foreign (Postal) Packets containing objectionable publications. Selected works of Mao Vol. IV Mao Tse Tung Ki Sankalita Grantha-4, 1, Quotations from Chairman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In this context, it is relevant to note that even the show cause notices did not specify which particular clause of Notification No. 77 was violated by which imported book. Some of the show cause notices make interesting reading. One of the notices (filed as an annexure to the writ petition) issued by the Calcutta officer says : "on examination, the above-mentioned publications appear to offend one or more of the G.O.I. E. (D.R.) Notification No. 25 of 9-2(3?)-60, Notification No. 77 of 22-9-1956 and Notification No. 158 of 26-11-1969 and Notification No. 186 dated 1-12-1962 which prohibits the export into India of any such publications. The publications, therefore appear to be liable to confiscation under section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962." The casual manner in which the matter has been dealt with is self-evident. 7. Though it is stated that in the counter-affidavit - and also in one of the letters written by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta to the petitioner - that the works of Mao Zedong are banned by Notification No. 77, the Notification does not bear out the said assertion. The Notification is a general one saying that books containing words which have the ef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich the power is conferred should act constitutionally and not in violation of any fundamental rights. This would seem to be elementary and no authority is necessary in support of it." 9. To the same effect are the observations of Hegde, J. in Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1970 SC 1070). The learned Judge said : "It must be remembered that right to trade is a guaranteed freedom. That right can be restricted only by law, considered by the Courts as reasonable in the circumstances. Not only the law restricting the freedom should be reasonable, the orders made on the basis of that law should also be reasonable." 10. In view of our opinion on the validity of the orders of confiscation, it is unnecessary to go into the question whether Notification No. 77 is itself violative of Article 19(1)(a) or Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 11. Before parting with this case, we must express our unhappiness with attempts at thought control in a democratic society like ours. Human history is witness to the fact that all evolution and all progress is because of power of thought and that every attempt at thought control is doomed to failure. An idea can never be killed. Sup....