1. ' MAMOON KAZI, J.---The petitioner had imported polypropelyne ropes to be used as raw material/component for building, fitting or re-fitting of ships, boats, floating structures, etc. The import of such goods is regulated by Notification S.R.O. 537(1)/72, dated 25-7-1972, which provides as follows:-- "The importers of the raw materials and components shall declare at the time of import that the materials and components have been imported for use in the building, fitting, repairing or refitting of ships, boats, floating structures or other vessel, whether self-propelled or not, designed primarily for the conveyance of persons or goods or both persons and goods by sea or by inland navigation."
2. ' There is no controversy on the point that the petitioner complied with all the conditions enumerated in the said Notification. Nevertheless their claim for refund was declined by the Assistant Collector of Customs (Import Refund) on the ground that the goods of the petitioner were not covered by the said Notification as the goods imported by the petitioner had not qualified as components or raw material to be used in the building and repairing of ships, boats, etc. The petitioner filed appeal and revision before the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals) and the Central Board of Revenue, respectively but without any success. The learned Collector of Customs, who disposed of the petitioner's appeal, held that since the goods imported by the petitioner did not fall within the purview of the expression raw material but they were finished goods, therefore, the petitioner could not claim any benefit under the said Notification. The said decision was further confirmed in revision by the Central Board of Revenue.
3. ' We have heard Mr. Raja Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ainuddin Khan, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. ' The only question that requires to be considered in this case is, whether the goods imported by the petitioner can qualify as components for use in the building, fitting or re-fitting of ships, boats, etc. It may be pointed out that the mere fact that the imported goods are finished products, is not sufficient to exclude them from the purview of the Notification. It has been pointed out by the petitioner that the polypropelyne ropes are used for the purpose of anchorage of boats or ships, for regulating the wind direction, for moving the boats and for moving the ships and fishing launches in a particular direction. As the goods control the wind direction, they are used as necessary components part of boats. Referring to the further use of the said goods, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the imported goods are also used for the purpose of climbing and getting down a ship.
5. A plain reading of the Notification indicates that the goods, to which the said Notification can apply, may either be raw materials or components. Such goods must be used in the building, fitting or re-fitting of ships, boats, etc. as pointed out earlier in this judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has led much stress on the word 'fitting' used in the said Notification. Since the word fitting has been used in the Notification as a verb, according to its ordinary dictionary meaning, the word would imply supplying or equipping ships, boats or other vessels with components. Mr. Ainuddin Khan, learned counsel for the respondents has been unable to show that polypropelyne ropes cannot be used as necessary components for fitting or re-fitting of such vessels. If the goods can be used as necessary components for fitting the vessels, then the petitioner was entitled to obtain refund of customs duty by invoking the said Notification. Mr. Raja Qureshi has further contended before us that the petitioner was allowed refund of customs duty on another consignment of the said material earlier. The details in regard to the earlier refund claim are provided in ground (a) of the petition. Learned counsel has invited our attention to the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No,3, where the said contention has not been specifically denied by the respondents. We have also perused the orders respectively passed by the respondents but nothing therefrom can be spelt out to indicate that the goods imported by the petitioner could not qualify for refund under the said Notification. The mere fact that the goods could qualify as finished products and not raw material cannot exclude them from the purview of the said Notification for the simple reason that even finished products can be used as components in the building or fitting of ships, boats or any other such vessel. Consequently, in our opinion the view taken by the respondents in this case does not appear to be correct.
6. ' In the result we allow this petition by declaring that the respondents were not justified in declining the petitioner's claim for refund of customs duty under the said Notification. We, therefore, direct the respondents to act in accordance with law and re-consider the petitioner's claim for refund.
7. ' The parties are left to bear their own costs.