Court dismisses petitions over 'Lyra' brand crayons, finding no violations of natural justice or fundamental rights.

The court dismissed the petitions, ruling that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice, erroneous assumption regarding the classification of 'Lyra' brand crayons, infringement of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution, or unequal treatment by Customs authorities. The applications were rejected with costs, and one set of hearing fees was awarded to the respondents, to be paid proportionately by the petitioners of each case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice
2. Erroneous assumption regarding the classification of 'Lyra' brand crayons
3. Violation of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution
4. Unequal treatment by Customs authorities

Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners argued that the orders made by the Assistant Collector of Customs and the Collector were passed without hearing them, thus violating the principles of natural justice. However, the court found that the petitioners had been given a full hearing before two successive Collectors of Customs, Calcutta. Between 19th January 1955 and 16th February 1955, the petitioners were aware of the Collector's decision through Customs officers, and on 16th February 1955, they made a representation regarding the distinction between 'crayons' and 'coloured pencils.' This representation was considered, and the petitioners were given a personal hearing by the Collector on 26th February 1955, who confirmed the order of assessment. They were also heard by the successor in office of the previous Collector on 12th April 1955. The court concluded that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.

2. Erroneous Assumption Regarding Classification:
The petitioners contended that the Customs authorities erroneously classified 'Lyra' brand crayons as 'coloured pencils.' The court noted that this contention involved determining the distinction between 'coloured pencils' and 'crayons,' which required an investigation into disputed facts and materials. The court held that such an investigation was a matter for the Customs authorities to decide and could not be addressed in an application under Article 32 of the Constitution.

3. Violation of Fundamental Rights:
The petitioners claimed that their rights under Article 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution, namely to hold property and carry on trade, were violated by the impugned orders. The court found that the petitioners did not challenge any provisions of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934, or the Sea Customs Act, 1878, nor did they contend that the orders were without jurisdiction. The court held that if the provisions of law under which the impugned orders were passed were valid and the orders were within jurisdiction, there was no question of the infraction of a fundamental right. The court concluded that the proper remedy for the petitioners was by way of an appeal, and since they did not challenge the provisions of law or the jurisdiction of the orders, there was no violation of their fundamental rights.

4. Unequal Treatment:
The petitioners argued that the Customs authorities had assessed duty on similar goods under item 45(a) in other cases, thus meting out unequal treatment. The court referred to the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, which stated that the levy of customs duty on coloured pencils as crayons was done in some cases merely through oversight, and when discovered, the mistake was corrected. The court found that the petitioners were not entitled to make any grievance on this account, as the duty was regularly levied under item 45(4) in subsequent imports. The court concluded that there was no unequal treatment.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, stating that there was no substance in the contention that the impugned orders violated the petitioners' fundamental rights or that there was unequal treatment by the Customs authorities. The applications were dismissed with costs, and one set of hearing fees was awarded in favor of the respondents, to be paid proportionately by the petitioners of each case.

---