Start with the receiving requirement
State where the car will be used and ask the responsible local provider which checks and documentation apply. Traffic side is relevant, but it does not settle every lighting requirement on its own. Avoid assuming that vehicles with the same steering position automatically have interchangeable lamp specifications. The accepted proposal needs a destination-specific answer from a competent party.
The export and handover guide helps keep that answer attached to the individual vehicle. A general market brochure may identify a lamp type without proving that a particular car is acceptable for registration. Do not promise an import outcome from a photograph or from a previous shipment involving another specification. Keep approval status and equipment identity as separate fields.
Identify the fitted lamps and controls
Request readable component information where accessible through suitable inspection, original equipment evidence and clear views of both lamps. Note any disclosed replacement or aftermarket work. An exterior that looks identical can contain different components. The trim verification guide keeps the offered specification separate from a reference image.
Record the lighting functions the customer requires, including any adjustment or automatic functions only when supported. A working dashboard control does not prove every lamp function. Any demonstration should follow appropriate instructions under suitable conditions. Do not dismantle or alter components solely to satisfy a remote photograph request; a qualified provider should determine how to establish the necessary evidence safely.
Assess condition without guessing the repair
Describe visible damage, moisture, warnings or reported poor operation as findings. A cloudy lens or an intermittent symptom does not establish which part needs replacement. Ask for suitable inspection and supported conclusions. Where prior front-end repair is disclosed, review the associated work and the checks appropriate to the lamps and any related fitted systems.
The collision-history purchase review considers the wider vehicle question. A tidy lamp replacement cannot establish the condition of the surrounding structure. Keep the lamp's repair scope separate from body findings, and distinguish cosmetic improvements from work needed for acceptable function. For a new proposal, include delivery condition and equipment matching rather than relying on unused status alone.
Compare supported remedy with another candidate
If a receiving provider requires a change, obtain a written scope with the identified components, work and verification. Include availability and relevant support instead of using an online component price as the completed amount. Do not assume that coding, an adapter or a bulb swap can solve an unresolved specification problem. The provider needs to establish what is suitable for the actual car.
Compare the finished candidate with an alternative already meeting the requirement where available. A higher trim's lamp technology is not a benefit if the buyer cannot use or support it as intended. The quotation scope guide explains how to keep the required remedy and delivery stage visible beside the vehicle amount. Until the scope is resolved, label the corresponding cost as pending.
Preserve the decision through handover
The final file should contain the offered lamp description, relevant component evidence, findings and the receiving-provider position. If lamps are changed during preparation, update the record and verify the completed arrangement. Do not retain the original specification claim after substituting a different system.
For a batch, repeat the check for each unit rather than treating a matching year label as proof. A buyer may accept cosmetic variation while requiring identical supported lighting. Write that boundary into the order. This approach keeps the decision focused on accepted vehicle use and evidence, without giving universal compliance advice or claiming guaranteed eligibility for every China-market Seltos.
A practical shortlist example
A dealer may receive a car with working lamps and an attractive higher-trim specification, but no answer about the intended destination arrangement. Keep the working-light observation as one result and the receiving-provider suitability question as another. Do not promote the first into the second merely because both concern headlights.
If a provider proposes replacing an assembly, ask for the supported component identity, completed work and verification rather than a generic lamp price. Compare that finished proposition with another suitably identified candidate. Retain any destination decision with the specific vehicle reference and update it if equipment changes. This prevents an apparently settled lighting question from becoming inaccurate during preparation or being transferred silently to a different Seltos in the order.
Compare the decision
| Finding or requirement | Useful next decision |
|---|---|
| Destination suitability is not established | Seek the competent receiving-provider answer and retain the requirement against the specific candidate. |
| Fitted lamps have been replaced | Identify the actual components and review operation plus any relevant follow-up assessment. |
| A modification is proposed | Compare a supported completed scope with another candidate; do not approve an improvised fix from a price alone. |
Buyer questions
Does LED mean the headlights suit my country?
No. Technology, beam specification, condition and destination requirements are separate questions.
Can a supplier's photo prove registration eligibility?
No. It supports identification, while eligibility requires the relevant evidence and decision from responsible destination parties.
