CAAR Rejects Apple India's Request on HomePod Classification, Cites Contradictory Arguments
The question of classification for such convergence devices had been settled by a High Court, the Customs Authority declined the request as non-maintainable.
The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) in Mumbai has rejected Apple India's petition seeking a corrigendum to an advance ruling order regarding the classification of Apple HomePod, finding that the company had made contradictory arguments about the applicability of a Delhi High Court judgment.
Apple India had filed a petition requesting modification of the Order, which had declined to issue a ruling on the classification of Apple HomePod under CTH 8517 62 90, citing that the matter had already been examined by the Delhi High Court. The company sought to renew its earlier ruling which had expired on 31.03.2025.
3000 Illustrations, Case Studies & Examples for Ind-AS & IFRS, Click Here
During a personal hearing on 22.07.2025, Apple argued that the Delhi High Court's order pertained to Amazon Echo devices and not their product, claiming their product line was different and thus the court's ruling was inapplicable. They contended that their case did not fall within the prohibitions of Section 281 of the Customs Act, 1962.
The Customs Authority, however, pointed out that Apple had previously cited the same Delhi High Court judgment in their renewal application to support their classification argument. In paragraph 51 of their application dated 18.02.2025, Apple had stated: "This argument was concurred by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para 48 of the judgment to state that the CAAR, Mumbai had correctly come to conclude that Apple HomePod was principally a convergence device."
The Authority noted that Apple was contradicting itself - first using the High Court judgment to support their case, then arguing it doesn't apply when it was used against them. The Authority stated that "the petitioner cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate."
The core legal issue centered on Section 281(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, which prohibits the Authority from allowing an application where the question raised is the same as in a matter already decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court. The Authority clarified that the statutory requirement is for the question to be the same, not the applicant or the specific model of the product.
The Authority observed that the fundamental question was the correct customs classification of a multi-function "convergence device" that performs transmission and reception of data over a network using components like Wi-Fi/Bluetooth, microphones, and speakers. Since Apple had admitted their device is a convergence device and had stated that the High Court had concurred with this classification, the essential question had been settled by a high court.
The Authority, led by Shri Prabhat K. Rameshwaram, found no legal or factual basis to alter or modify the earlier order, noting that no new material facts had been presented that would alter the fundamental nature of the device or the applicable legal principles.
It was found that Apple had contradicted its own position and that the question of classification for such convergence devices had been settled by a High Court, the Customs Authority declined the request as non-maintainable. The order was issued on 01.08.2025 and sent to various customs authorities and Apple India.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
