Metal buckles treated as metallic embellishments; later amendment held clarificatory under the customs exemption.

Imported metal buckles used in the leather industry were treated as "metallic embellishments other than zip fasteners" under the customs exemption notification because the term was not defined and had to be understood by ordinary usage. The decisive test was whether the article had the character of an embellishment and served a beautifying or adornment function, even if it also had a functional aspect. The later amendment specifically naming buckles was regarded as clarificatory, not as changing the legal position, and prior administrative treatment supported the same construction.

---

---

Issues: Whether imported metal buckles for use in the leather industry fell within the expression "metallic embellishments other than zip fasteners" under the relevant customs exemption notification, and whether the subsequent amendment specifically mentioning buckles was merely clarificatory.

Analysis: The expression "metallic embellishment" was not defined in the notification, and its meaning had to be gathered from ordinary usage. On that basis, the decisive consideration was whether the imported article had the character of an embellishment and was used for beautification or adornment, even if it also had a functional aspect. The record showed no evidence to displace the view that the buckles imported by the appellants were embellishments in appearance, and the amending notification specifically naming buckles was treated as removing doubt rather than changing the legal position. The presence of prior administrative treatment supporting the same view also weighed in favour of the appellants.

Conclusion: The imported buckles were covered by the exemption as metallic embellishments, and the later amendment was only clarificatory.

---