Trade understanding of "designer kit" controls import classification where the import policy gives no definition.

The import policy did not define "designer kit," so classification depended on the true trade and technical understanding of the expression in the leather industry. The mode of invoicing was not decisive on its own. Because no inquiry had been made with relevant trade or technical authorities to determine whether the imported items could properly be treated as a designer kit or a permissible variation, the original order was found unsatisfactory. The matter was therefore remanded for fresh consideration after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods could be treated as a designer kit under the relevant import policy, and whether the matter required fresh examination on the true trade understanding of the expression.

Analysis: The expression "designer kit" was not defined in the import policy. The mode of invoicing was held not to be determinative. Since no inquiry had been made with the relevant trade or technical authorities to ascertain how the term was understood in the leather industry, and whether the imported items could properly be regarded as a designer kit or a permissible variation of one, the original order was found to be unsatisfactory.

Conclusion: The order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration after giving the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

---