Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 20.04.2026
CESTAT Mumbai Ruled Charging Case for Hearing Aids as Accessory, Not Static Converter
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idย intelconsul@gmail.com . ย
โโ โโ โโ โ โโโ โ โ
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Mumbai recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Sonova Hearing India Pvt Ltd. This case revolved around the customs classification and duty assessment of imported charging cases for hearing aids. The outcome not only impacts Sonova but also sets a precedent for the import and classification of similar medical device accessories in India.
Background of the Case
Between October 2018 and August 2023, Sonova Hearing India Pvt Ltd imported 247 consignments of charging cases for hearing aids. These were cleared under Customs Tariff Item 9021 9010 as “parts and accessories of hearing aids,” attracting a Basic Customs Duty (BCD) of 7.5% as per Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. However, the Commissioner of Customs (Import), ACC, Mumbai, reassessed these imports under Tariff Item 8504 4030 (“Electrical Transformer, static converter, and inductors”), which carries a higher BCD of 20%.
This reclassification led to a demand for additional duty amounting to โน1,18,93,367, along with interest, penalty, and a redemption fine of โน1 crore. Sonova challenged this order before the CESTAT Mumbai.
Key Arguments
Sonova’s Position
- Nature of the Charging Case: Sonova argued that the imported charging cases did not include a power supply or battery.ย They functioned solely as a medium between a wall plug adapter (which converts AC to DC) and the hearing aids.ย The charging case itself did not convert power or store energy.
- Classification as Accessory: The company maintained that these cases are accessories specifically designed for hearing aids and should be classified under Tariff Item 9021 9010, not as static converters or battery chargers.
- No Suppression or Misdeclaration: Sonova highlighted that all Bills of Entry were assessed and, in some cases, physically examined by customs officers, who accepted the declared classification.ย Thus, there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade duty.
- Extended Period and Penalties: The invocation of the extended period for demand, as well as the imposition of penalties and redemption fine, was challenged as being legally unsustainable.
Customs Department’s Position
- Product Catalogue and Description: The department argued that product catalogues and website data described the imported goods as including a battery and charger, suggesting the imports were more than just empty cases.
- Subsequent Classification: They pointed out that Sonova had later classified similar goods under Tariff Item 8504, implying acceptance of the department’s position.
Tribunal’s Analysis and Findings
- Burden of Proof: The Tribunal reiterated that the burden to prove a change in classification lies with the department.ย The original classification by the importer must be discarded only with sufficient evidence.
- Physical and Documentary Evidence: Examination of the imported goods, Bills of Entry, and a Chartered Engineer’s certificate confirmed that the charging cases did not contain any power conversion mechanism or battery.ย The power adapter and charger were domestically sourced, not imported.
- Accessory, Not Converter: The Tribunal found that the charging case merely served as a holder and interface for charging hearing aids, not as a static converter or battery charger.ย The product literature and physical inspection supported this conclusion.
- No Suppression or Misdeclaration: Since customs officers had assessed and examined the goods, and all facts were disclosed, there was no suppression or misdeclaration.ย The extended period for demand and penalties was not justified.
Final Order and Implications
The CESTAT Mumbai set aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs, restoring the original classification under Tariff Item 9021 9010. The demand for additional duty, penalties, and redemption fine was quashed.
Key Takeaways
- Correct Classification is Crucial: Importers must ensure accurate classification, but the burden to prove a change lies with customs authorities.
- Accessory vs. Converter: Accessories that do not perform power conversion or storage should not be classified as static converters or battery chargers.
- Transparency in Import Declarations: Full disclosure and cooperation with customs can protect importers from allegations of suppression or misdeclaration.
Conclusion
This ruling provides clarity on the classification of charging cases for hearing aids and reinforces the importance of evidence-based customs assessments. It is a significant win for Sonova and sets a helpful precedent for the medical device industry in India.
Source: CESTAT Mumbai
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379
Leave a Reply