LG Watch W7 classified as telecommunications equipment under CTH 85176290 not timepieces, concessional duty denied

CESTAT New Delhi classified imported LG Watch W7 under CTH 85176290 rather than appellant's claimed CTH 91021900, ruling that smart watches with internet connectivity and phone capabilities fall under telecommunications equipment rather than timepieces. The tribunal denied concessional duty benefits under Notification 152/2009 as the correct classification was not covered. However, CESTAT set aside confiscation and penalty, finding the misclassification resulted from genuine misunderstanding rather than intentional mala fide conduct. The customs duty demand was upheld while penal provisions were rejected. Appeal allowed in part.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of LG Watch W7.
2. Eligibility for concessional rate of basic customs duty under Notification No. 152/2009.
3. Liability for confiscation and penalty.

Summary:

1. Classification of LG Watch W7:
The primary issue was whether the LG Watch W7 should be classified under CTH 91021900 or CTH 85176290. The appellant argued that the watch should fall under Chapter 91 as it has traditional watch features such as physical watch hands and quartz movement. However, the department contended that the watch has multiple functionalities beyond timekeeping, such as data transmission and reception, making it a smart watch. The Tribunal examined the General Rules of Interpretation and relevant chapter notes, concluding that the LG Watch W7 is a smart watch capable of transmitting and receiving data, thus classifying it under CTH 85176290.

2. Eligibility for Concessional Rate of Basic Customs Duty:
The appellant claimed a concessional rate of basic customs duty under serial no. 955 of Notification No. 152/2009, which applies to goods falling under Tariff Entry 9102 to 9103. Since the Tribunal classified the LG Watch W7 under CTH 85176290, it held that the benefit of the said notification is not applicable. The certificate of origin from Korea was deemed insufficient to extend the benefit as the goods did not fall under the specified tariff entries.

3. Liability for Confiscation and Penalty:
The Tribunal noted that while the appellant had wrongly classified the goods and claimed an ineligible exemption, there was no evidence of intentional misdeclaration or mala fide intent. Citing prior judgments, the Tribunal held that mere wrong classification or claiming an ineligible exemption does not constitute grounds for confiscation or penalty. Therefore, the order imposing penalty and confiscating the goods was set aside.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the classification of LG Watch W7 under CTH 85176290 and confirmed the demand for customs duty. However, it set aside the penalties and confiscation, recognizing the appellant's actions as a misunderstanding rather than intentional misdeclaration. The appeal was partly allowed.

---