Principal function governs Apple Watch classification, while pending customs dispute barred advance ruling on bands.

Apple Watch, being a composite device with timekeeping and data functions, was classified by reference to its principal function under the General Rules for Interpretation and Note 3 to Section XVI. It was treated mainly as a wireless communication apparatus that transmits and receives voice, images and other data as an extension of a paired iPhone, making Heading 8517 and Tariff Item 8517 62 90 the appropriate classification. No advance ruling was issued on Apple Watch bands, including leather and non-leather bands, because the same issue was already pending before the customs adjudicating authority and was barred under the proviso to Section 281(2).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Apple Watch is classifiable under CTH 8517 62 90 on the basis of its principal function; (ii) Whether advance ruling could be pronounced on Apple Watch bands, including non-leather bands and leather bands, in view of the pending dispute before the adjudicating authority.

Issue (i): Whether Apple Watch is classifiable under CTH 8517 62 90 on the basis of its principal function.

Analysis: The product was found to be a composite device with multiple features, including timekeeping and data-related functions. Applying the General Rules for Interpretation and Note 3 to Section XVI, classification had to follow the component that imparts the principal function. The device was held to function mainly as an apparatus for communication in a wireless network, transmitting and receiving voice, images and other data as an extension of a paired iPhone. On that basis, Heading 8517 and Tariff Item 8517 62 90 were held to be the appropriate classification.

Conclusion: The classification of Apple Watch under CTH 8517 62 90 was affirmed in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether advance ruling could be pronounced on Apple Watch bands, including non-leather bands and leather bands, in view of the pending dispute before the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The bands issue was found to be the subject matter of a show cause notice already pending before the adjudicating authority. In that situation, the proviso to Section 281(2) barred the Authority from allowing the application on the same question. The Authority therefore declined to pronounce a ruling on the bands, while leaving the applicant at liberty to approach again after resolution of the dispute.

Conclusion: No ruling was pronounced on the classification of Apple Watch bands, whether non-leather or leather, because the application was barred on maintainability grounds.

Final Conclusion: The device classification was confirmed, but the request concerning band classification was not adjudicated owing to the pending customs dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: A composite article is classified according to its principal function under the relevant section and chapter notes, and an advance ruling cannot be granted on a question that is already pending before the customs adjudicating authority.

---