The arbitration court of Moscow region rejected the Apple in satisfaction of requirements about recognition illegal requirements of Sheremetevsky customs which classify the Apple Watch as a watch. It is reported on Monday TASS with reference to the results of the meeting.
“The arbitration court in the name of the Russian Federation decided to meet the stated requirements of the LLC “Apple Rus” to refuse”, – is spoken in the message of the judge.
A judicial act may be appealed against in the Tenth arbitration court within one month from the date of manufacture in its entirety.
Apple has filed lawsuits in the Moscow arbitration court and arbitration court of the Moscow region in February 2016. The company disputes the decision of the Central customs administration of the FCS of Russia and Sheremetyevo customs pre-classification at the end of 2015 the Apple Watch as a watch. FCS began to classify the product as a wireless device for transmitting and receiving data (charge zero), but after a few months it was decided on the classification of the Apple Watch as a watch, which are subject to a ten percent duty.
Due to the fact that the FCS began to impose 10% duty on these devices, the Apple Watch has risen in price in retail is about 15%. At the end of 2015, Apple has raised the price of the Apple Watch 7-17% depending on the model, because now they are classified as a wrist watch, for the import of which, the rate goes to 10%, and not as a device for transmitting data, the import of which is duty exempt.
According to the plaintiff, the Apple Watch is not a clock, as the device does not work without a smartphone. “Without synchronization with the parent device of this device to count the time can not”, – stated in court, the representative of Apple.
Apple representatives also appealed to the draft decision of the Commission of the EEC, which concerns the classification of this device. “This draft decision conclusions on how the functional qualities must have this device to fall in heading 8517 (electronic devices), and our device corresponds fully to the description given in the Commission’s draft decision”, –said the representative of the company.
However, the judge this argument was rejected, as the project now finally adopted.