https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468049 The Samsung Galaxy Ring was treated as a composite good whose communication features were ancillary and whose core function was measuring and checking physiological data through sensors; it was therefore classified under Heading 9031 as measuring or checking apparatus, not as imitation jewellery, electro-diagnostic apparatus, or communication apparatus. The Sizing Kit, consisting of sample rings used only to determine finger size and fit, was also classified under Heading 9031 because its function was limited to measuring and checking size. The ruling further states that classification must follow the tariff terms, relevant section and chapter notes, and the General Rules for Interpretation, and that exemption notifications cannot determine tariff classification. Where no single essential character or principal function is decisive, the heading occurring last in numerical order applies. en-us Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Apr 2026 21:12:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468049 The Samsung Galaxy Ring was treated as a composite good whose communication features were ancillary and whose core function was measuring and checking physiological data through sensors; it was therefore classified under Heading 9031 as measuring or checking apparatus, not as imitation jewellery, electro-diagnostic apparatus, or communication apparatus. The Sizing Kit, consisting of sample rings used only to determine finger size and fit, was also classified under Heading 9031 because its function was limited to measuring and checking size. The ruling further states that classification must follow the tariff terms, relevant section and chapter notes, and the General Rules for Interpretation, and that exemption notifications cannot determine tariff classification. Where no single essential character or principal function is decisive, the heading occurring last in numerical order applies. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 24 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468049