Trade parlance controls import classification where a restricted category must be proved by the Department.

DAP Monomer was held not to be proved as a plasticiser for Export and Import Policy classification, because goods without a statutory definition must be classified according to trade parlance rather than dictionary meaning alone. The record showed multiple uses for DAP Monomer, with reactive plasticiser being only one use, and the Department failed to lead evidence that the market understood it as a plasticiser. As the burden lay on the Department to establish the restricted classification, the appellate finding that the goods did not fall within that category was supported by the record and the Department's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether DAP Monomer was classifiable as a plasticiser under the Export and Import Policy, 1992-97 so as to justify confiscation and denial of clearance.

Analysis: The relevant classification had to be determined according to how the trade understood the goods in common parlance, not by dictionary meaning alone. The material on record showed that DAP Monomer had multiple uses and that only one of them was as a reactive plasticiser. The Department did not produce evidence to establish that the goods were known in trade as plasticisers. The burden remained on the Department to prove that the imported goods fell within the restricted category, and the appellate finding that they were not plasticisers was supported by the record.

Conclusion: DAP Monomer was not proved to be a plasticiser, and the Department's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a statutory definition, tariff or policy classification of goods must be determined by their understanding in trade parlance, and the burden lies on the Department to prove restrictive classification.

---