' AJMAL MIAN, J.-This petition is directed against the three orders, namely, Deputy Collector of Customs order dated 13th November, 1971 the Collector of Customs appellate order dated 19th September, 1972 and the Board of Revenue's Revisional Order dated 28th July, 1973.
' The brief facts leading to the filing of the above Petition are that the petitioners imported "Crosrol Varga Accessory" under import licence issued under Item No, 33 (a) of List HI. It may be observed that it seems that by mistake in the import licence item 33 (a) has been mentioned instead of item 38 (a) which is the relevant item in the import policy for January to June, 1970 gazetted in the Pakistan Gazette, Extraordinary, dated 1st January, 1970. The above item was imported by the petitioners under four different consignemnts, the first consignment was allowed by the Customs Authorities without raising any objection. However, in respect of the second consignment the respondent raised the objection that the item in question is not covered under the description of item 38 (a), namely parts and accessories of machinery and mill work. Respondent, 3 the Deputy Collector, Customs issued a show-cause notice dated 14th July, 1971 to the petitioners, calling upon them to show-cause why action under section 156 (9) of the Customs Act, 1969 read with section 3 (3) of I & E (Control)
Act, 1950 should not be taken as no valid licence for the import of the above item was present alongwith the bill of entry. Upon the receipt of the above show-cause notice, the petitioner filed objections. However, the Deputy Collector of Customs through his aforesaid orders dated 13th January, 1971 held that the item I question is not part of the accessories of carding engines and, therefore he confiscated the above item under section 156 (9) of the Customs Ac of 1969 read with section 3 (3) of. Import and Export Control Act, 19 0 and gave option to the petitioners to obtain the release of the goods on payment, of fine of Rs, 6,500. The petitioners being aggrieved by the above rder filed an appeal which was dismissed by respondent 2, that is, the C Ilector of Customs (Appeal) by his aforesaid order dated 19th September, 972. The petitioners aggrieved by the above order filed revision w ich was too dismissed by respondent 1. That is, the Central Board of Revenue through the aforesaid order dated 26th July, 1973. The petitioners being aggrieved by the above order have filed the present petition.
2. (a) In support of the above petiti n Mr. Abdul Aziz Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, has ade the following submissions :-
(1) That the term accessory will include the item in question and, therefore, the respondent erred in not taking into consideration the above term accessories used in item 38(a) of the import policy of the year in question.
(2) That under the import policy in question from the categories 'of "parts and accessories of machinery" only those items have been excluded which are mentioned in Annexure XVI to the Gazette.
(3) That the words "parts and accessories" are to be read disjunc-tively as both have their own independent connotations meanings.
(b) In support of the above contentions Mr. Abdul Aziz Khan has referred to item 38 (a) as well as Annexure XVI to the import policy in question which reads as follows :-- "38 (a). Parts and accessories of a machinery and mill work (excluding item detailed in Annexure XVI)."
Annexure XVI" List of items import of which will not be permissible against maintenance, spares and accessories/components for assembly/manufacture of machinery.
' Item No,
1. Textile looms and spinning frames assembled.
3. We have also referred to the definition of the word "accessory" given I in the Ballentine's Law Dictionary, Third Edition, which describes the word "accessory" as follows :- "A subordinate working part of a larger machine or instrumentality, for example, the windshield wipers on an automobile. A person who for some manner is connected with a crime, either before or after its perpetration, but who is not present at the time the crime is committed."
(c) From the impugned order, it is evident that the item in question cannot be used independently but is to be fitted with the main carding machine. The effect of fitting the above item is to give better quality and more production. In this view of the matter we are inclined to hold that the term "accessories" used in item 38(a) will include the item in question. Furthermore, Annexure XVI attached to the Gazette containing the import policy in question only excludes textile looms and spinning frames assembled/unassembled from the list of items, import of which was not permissible against maintenance, spares and accessories/components for assembly/manufacture of machinery. It is apparent that the item in question does not fall within the categories of any of the items specified in the aforesaid Annexure XVI to the Gazette.
3. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and, therefore, we declare the same as being without lawful authority. There will be no order as to costs.