M/S CARESTREAM HEALTH INDIA PVT. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

                     [2026] 8 S.C.R. 564 : 2026 INSC 837

                   M/s Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd.
                                   v.
                        Commissioner of Customs
                          (Civil Appeal No. 3440 of 2025)
                                   12 August 2026
               [Sanjay Kumar* and Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ.]


                               Issue for Consideration
           Issue arose as regards the classification of imported laser imagers
           for the levy of duty under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; whether
           the imported laser imagers are classifiable under Customs Tariff
           Heading (CTH) 9018 90 19, as claimed by the appellant-importer,
           or whether they would fall under residuary CTH 9033 00 00 in
           Chapter 90.

                                      Headnotes†
           Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – Classification of imported laser
           imagers for levy of duty – Whether the imported laser imagers
           are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9018
           90 19, as claimed by the appellant-importer, or whether
           they would fall under residuary CTH 9033 00 00 in Chapter
           90 – Whether the laser imagers, which are compatible with
           machines falling under separate tariff headings, i.e., 9018
           and 9022, would still qualify u/r.2(b) or would necessarily
           have to be included under the residuary CTH 9033, as per
           r.2(c) – According to the appellant, the laser imager is not a
           ‘part’ or ‘accessory’ but an ‘apparatus’ used for diagnostic
           purposes – It contends that the laser imager is used with
           machines classified under CTH 9018, and being of use with
           such machines, it has to be categorised under CTH 9018 90
           19, the residuary clause for ‘other such apparatus’ – However,
           as per the Revenue, the imported laser imager is also usable
           with machines other than those falling under CTH 9018 and
           would, therefore, fall within the ambit of residuary CTH 9033
           00 00 in Chapter 90- ‘Parts and accessories (not specified or
           included elsewhere in this chapter) for machines, appliances,
           instruments or apparatus of Chapter 90’:
           Held: Appellant’s contention that the laser imager is a ‘diagnostic
           apparatus’ in its own right not agreed with – Admittedly, the laser
* Author
[2026] 8 S.C.R.                                                                 565

  M/s Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs


      imager has no diagnostic skill or capability of its own and must
      necessarily receive inputs from diagnostic equipment to carry
      out its function of printing films – In effect, it is an ‘accessory’
      to the diagnostic equipment from which it receives inputs, as it
      then transfers the same onto films – CTH 9018 90 19 admittedly
      applies only to ‘other diagnostic instruments and apparatus’, i.e.,
      either ‘diagnostic instruments’ or ‘diagnostic apparatus’ – As the
      laser imager has no diagnostic capabilities of its own, it cannot
      per se be classified under this heading – The laser imager does
      not aid in or augment the performance of the medical equipment
      that it receives inputs from – It only plays the ancillary function of
      transferring such inputs onto film for preservation or further use
      by medical professionals – The medical equipment that carries
      out the diagnostic function is complete in itself and the laser
      imager does not contribute in any manner to that exercise – In
      effect, it only serves as an accessory to such medical equipment
      by printing the transmitted diagnostic data on films – As the laser
      imagers do not directly fall under CTH 9018 90 19 or any other
      heading in CTH 9018, the only avenue for CTH 9018 to be applied
      to them, as parts or accessories, would be by way of the ‘Notes’
      in Chapter 90 – Note 1 in Chapter 90 details the goods to which
      the said chapter does not apply – Note 2 is of relevance – When
      it speaks of accessories suitable for use ‘solely or principally’ with
      a particular kind of machine or a number of machines of the same
      tariff heading, r.2(b) clearly distinguishes and separates such
      accessories from those suitable for use with a number of machines
      falling under different tariff headings – The tariff duty for Magnetic
      Resonance Imaging apparatus, under CTH 9018 13 00, and also
      for Linear Ultrasound Scanners, falling under CTH 9018 12 10, was
      7.5% at that time while the tariff duty for Computed Tomography
      apparatus, falling under CTH 9022 12 00 was 10% per unit and
      the tariff duty for X-ray generators and apparatus (non-portable),
      falling under CTH 9022 14 10 was 15% per unit – In such a
      scenario, it defies logic and rationale to invoke r.2(b) for application
      to an accessory that may be clubbed with machines falling under
      CTH 9018 and also CTH 9022, when different rates of tariff duties
      would apply to such machines – The interpretation placed upon
      r.2(b) by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
      is valid and correct – In consequence, accessories suitable for
      use with a number of machines, instruments or apparatus falling
      under the same tariff heading would have to be classified with such
      machines, instruments or apparatus, but when such accessories
566                                                             [2026] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       are suitable for use not only with machines, instruments or
       apparatus under a particular tariff heading but also with machines,
       instruments or apparatus falling under another tariff heading,
       they would necessarily have to be brought under residuary CTH
       9033 00 00, being accessories suitable for use with machines,
       appliances, instruments or apparatus falling under Chapter 90,
       which have not been specified or included under a particular tariff
       heading – Appeal bereft of merit, dismissed – Customs Act, 1962.
       [Paras 8, 9, 11, 17-19]

       Notification – Reliance upon, when not justified – Appellant
       relied upon Notification No. 12/2012 dtd.17.03.2012 issued by
       the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government
       of India – Without first establishing foundational compliance
       with the conditions to be satisfied, the appellant cannot
       straightaway seek to rely upon the notification:
       Held: Said notification does not come to the aid of the appellant –
       At Sl. No.473 of the table in the said notification, goods required
       for medical, surgical, dental or veterinary use, falling under CTH
       9018, CTH 9019, CTH 9020, CTH 9021 or CTH 9022, were
       subjected to a standard rate of customs duty @ 5% – Notably,
       specific tariff headings were mentioned at Sl. No.473 of the
       notification and no mention was made of CTH 9033, relating
       to other parts and accessories of machines coming under
       Chapter 90 – Further, the annexure to the notification detailed the
       conditions required to be satisfied to avail the benefit thereof –
       Significantly, the appellant never relied upon this notification
       earlier and raised it for the first time before this Court – Without
       first establishing foundational compliance with the conditions to
       be satisfied, the appellant cannot straightaway seek to rely upon
       this notification. [Para 10]
       Words and Phrases – ‘accessory’ – Meaning, discussed.
       [Para 13]

                               Case Law Cited
       Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. C-Net Communication
       (India) (Pvt.) Ltd. [2007] 10 SCR 330 : (2007) 12 SCC 72 – held
       not applicable.
       Annapurna Carbon Industries Company v. State of Andhra
       Pradesh [1976] 3 SCR 561 : (1976) 2 SCC 273 – referred to.
[2026] 8 S.C.R.                                                             567

  M/s Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs


                       Books and Periodicals Cited
      McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 5th
      Edition; The New International Webster’s Comprehensive
      Dictionary of the English Language, Deluxe Encyclopaedic
      Edition – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
      Customs Tariff Act, 1975; Customs Act, 1962.

                              List of Keywords
      Imported laser imagers; Levy of duty under Customs Tariff
      Act, 1975; Customs Tariff Heading (CTH); CTH 9018 90 19;
      Residuary CTH 9033 00 00 in Chapter 90; Accessory; ‘part’;
      ‘apparatus’; Diagnostic purposes; ‘other such apparatus’; ‘Parts
      and accessories (not specified or included elsewhere in this
      chapter) for machines, appliances, instruments or apparatus of
      Chapter 90’; No diagnostic skill; Capability of its own; Receive
      inputs from diagnostic equipment; Function of printing films;
      Medical equipment; Transmitted diagnostic data on films; Suitable
      for use with a number of machines falling under different tariff
      headings; Specific tariff headings; Ancillary function; An accessory
      to medical equipment.

                             Case Arising From
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3440
      of 2025
      From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2024 of the Customs
      Excise and Service Tax Apellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench,
      Chennai in CA No. 41073 of 2014

                          Appearances for Parties
      Advs. for the Appellant(s):
      Ms. Charanya Lakshmikumaran, L. Badri Narayanan, Ms. Neha
      Choudhary, Ms. Nitum Jain, Ms. Medha Sinha, Swastik Mishra,
      Adithya Nair, Yashovardhan Singh.
      Advs. for the Respondent(s):
      Raghvendra P. Shankar, A.S.G., Gurmeet Singh Makker, B.K.
      Satija, Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Ms. Pallavi Mishra, Ms. Rajeshwari
      Shankar.
568                                                        [2026] 8 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                Judgment

       Sanjay Kumar, J

1.     Classification of imported laser imagers for the levy of duty under
       the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, is in issue. Having suffered concurrent
       findings as to the tariff heading under which the said laser imagers
       should be classified, Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd, the importer,
       is in appeal under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2.     Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd, the appellant, imported ‘Dryview
       6850 Laser Imagers W/3D’ from China under Bill of Entry dated
       02.04.2013 and classified them under the Customs Tariff Heading
       (CTH) 9018 90 19 in Chapter 90 of Section XVIII of the First
       Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Section XVIII is titled
       ‘Optical, photographic, cinematographic, measuring, checking,
       precision, medical or surgical instruments and apparatus; clocks
       and watches; musical instruments; parts and accessories thereof’.
       Chapter 90 therein is titled ‘Optical, photographic, cinematographic,
       measuring, checking, precision, medical or surgical instruments and
       apparatus; parts and accessories thereof’.
3.     The appellant claimed that its laser imagers would qualify as ‘Other
       diagnostic instruments and apparatus’ under CTH 9018 90 19.
       However, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, rejected
       such classification, by Order-in-Original dated 24.06.2013, and
       directed their re-classification under CTH 9033 00 00 as accessories
       not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 90 for machines,
       appliances, instruments or apparatus of that chapter. Aggrieved
       thereby, the appellant filed Appeal No. C.Cus.427/2014 before the
       Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai. However, by Order-
       in-Appeal dated 10.03.2014, the Commissioner affirmed the view
       taken by the Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the appeal.
       Assailing the said order, the appellant approached the Customs,
       Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench,
       Chennai, by way of Customs Appeal No. 41073 of 2014, but met
       with the same fate when the appeal was dismissed by the Final
       Order dated 21.08.2024, presently under scrutiny.
[2026] 8 S.C.R.                                                         569

     M/s Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs


4.      The issue before us is whether the imported laser imagers are
        classifiable under CTH 9018 90 19, as claimed by the appellant,
        or whether they would fall under residuary CTH 9033 00 00 in
        Chapter 90. At this stage, we may note that the increase in the rate
        of duty for goods falling under CTH 9033 00 00 when compared to
        goods falling under CTH 9018 90 19 was 2.5% at that time and the
        consequential demand for differential duty visited upon the appellant
        was for ₹5,21,616/-.
5.      The imported laser imager is a printer that uses photo thermographic
        (dry laser) technology to develop images on film. It interfaces with
        digital diagnostic machines like Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI),
        Computed Tomography (CT), Full-Field Digital Mammography
        (FFDM), Digital Radiology (DR), Computed Radiography (CR),
        Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS), Digital
        Fluoroscopy and can also be used for other grayscale film
        applications. However, it is not medical equipment, in itself, as it
        does not possess independent diagnostic skills or capabilities.
6.      According to the appellant, the laser imager is not a ‘part’ or
        ‘accessory’ but an ‘apparatus’ used for diagnostic purposes. The
        appellant contends that the laser imager is used with machines
        classified under CTH 9018, titled ‘Instruments and appliances
        used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences including
        scientigraphic apparatus, other electromedical apparatus and
        sight-testing instruments – Electro-diagnostic apparatus (including
        apparatus for functional exploratory examinations or for checking
        physiological parameters)’, and being of use with such machines,
        the laser imager has to be categorised under CTH 9018 90 19, the
        residuary clause for ‘other such apparatus’.
7.      On the other hand, the Revenue would contend that the imported
        laser imager is also usable with machines other than those falling
        under CTH 9018 and would, therefore, fall within the ambit of
        residuary CTH 9033 00 00 in Chapter 90, which reads thus: ‘Parts
        and accessories (not specified or included elsewhere in this chapter)
        for machines, appliances, instruments or apparatus of Chapter 90’.
8.      At the outset, we are not persuaded to agree with the appellant’s
        contention that the laser imager is a ‘diagnostic apparatus’ in its
        own right. Admittedly, the laser imager has no diagnostic skill or
        capability of its own and must necessarily receive inputs from
570                                                            [2026] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


        diagnostic equipment to carry out its function of printing films. In
        effect, it is an ‘accessory’ to the diagnostic equipment from which
        it receives inputs, as it then transfers the same onto films. CTH
        9018 90 19 admittedly applies only to ‘other diagnostic instruments
        and apparatus’, i.e., either ‘diagnostic instruments’ or ‘diagnostic
        apparatus’. As the laser imager has no diagnostic capabilities of its
        own, it cannot per se be classified under this heading.
9.      Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi vs. C-Net Communication
        (India) (Pvt.) Ltd.1 is of no avail to the appellant. The issue in that
        case was whether a signal decoder was ‘reception apparatus for
        television’ or whether it was classifiable as ‘electrical machines and
        apparatus having individual functions’. Noting that, even without a
        decoder, a television would work, this Court observed that the true
        test is as to the function that the decoder achieves in the use of the
        television. Applying this test, it is clear that the laser imager does
        not aid in or augment the performance of the medical equipment
        that it receives inputs from. It only plays the ancillary function of
        transferring such inputs onto film for preservation or further use
        by medical professionals. The medical equipment that carries out
        the diagnostic function is complete in itself and the laser imager
        does not contribute in any manner to that exercise. In effect, it only
        serves as an accessory to such medical equipment by printing the
        transmitted diagnostic data on films.
10.     Similarly, Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17.03.2012 issued by the
        Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India,
        does not come to the aid of the appellant. At Sl. No. 473 of the
        table in the said notification, goods required for medical, surgical,
        dental or veterinary use, falling under CTH 9018, CTH 9019, CTH
        9020, CTH 9021 or CTH 9022, were subjected to a standard rate of
        customs duty @ 5%. Notably, specific tariff headings were mentioned
        at Sl. No. 473 of the notification and no mention was made of
        CTH 9033, relating to other parts and accessories of machines
        coming under Chapter 90. Further, we find that the annexure to the
        notification detailed the conditions required to be satisfied to avail
        the benefit thereof. Significantly, the appellant never relied upon this
        notification earlier and raised it for the first time before us. Without


1     (2007) 12 SCC 72
[2026] 8 S.C.R.                                                           571

  M/s Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs


      first establishing foundational compliance with the conditions to be
      satisfied, the appellant cannot straightaway seek to rely upon this
      notification.
11.   As the laser imagers do not directly fall under CTH 9018 90 19 or
      any other heading in CTH 9018, the only avenue for CTH 9018 to
      be applied to them, as parts or accessories, would be by way of
      the ‘Notes’ in Chapter 90. Note 1 in Chapter 90 details the goods
      to which the said chapter does not apply. Note 2 is of relevance
      and it reads as under:-
            2. Subject to Note 1 above, parts and accessories for
            machines, apparatus, instruments or articles of this
            Chapter are to be classified according to the following
            rules:
            (a) parts and accessories which are goods included in
            any of the Headings of this Chapter or of Chapter 84,
            85 or 91 (other than Heading 8487, 8548 or 9033) are
            in all cases to be classified in their respective Headings;
            (b) other parts and accessories, if suitable for use solely
            or principally with a particular kind of machine, instrument
            or apparatus, or with a number of machines, instruments
            or apparatus of the same Heading (including a machine,
            instrument or apparatus of Heading 9010, 9013 or 9031)
            are to be classified with the machines, instruments or
            apparatus of that kind;
            (c) all other parts and accessories are to be classified
            in Heading 9033.
12.   Rule 2(a) would not have application to the laser imagers in question
      as they are not goods included in any of the headings of Chapter
      90 or of the other chapters mentioned therein. The question is
      whether they come within the ambit of Rule 2(b) or whether Rule
      2(c) would have application. In turn, this would depend upon the
      interpretation of Rule 2(b). The laser imagers are obviously not ‘parts’
      of the diagnostic machines used for medical imaging as they are
      independent of such machines but they are ‘accessories’ thereto,
      as they carry out the supplementary function of printing the data
      received therefrom on films.
572                                                          [2026] 8 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


13.     As per the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms,
        5th Edition, ‘accessory’ is a part, subassembly, or assembly that
        contributes to the effectiveness of a piece of equipment without
        changing its basic function. The New International Webster’s
        Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language, Deluxe
        Encyclopaedic Edition, defines accessory to mean, amongst other
        things, a person or thing that aids subordinately; an adjunct; an
        appurtenance; an accompaniment.
14.     In Annapurna Carbon Industries Company vs. State of Andhra
        Pradesh2, a 3-Judge Bench of this Court observed that the term
        ‘accessories’ may be used to describe goods which have been
        manufactured for use as an aid or addition, but cautioned that
        accessories would not necessarily be confined to the particular
        machines for which they may serve as aids, as the same item may
        be an accessory of more than one kind of instrument.
15.     Presently, that is the situation, as the imported laser imagers are
        compatible for use with several machines, as is clear from the
        appellant’s own catalogue. The laser imagers are compatible with
        Linear Ultrasound Scanners, falling under CTH 9018 12 10; Magnetic
        Resonance Imaging apparatus, falling under CTH 9018 13 00; Echo
        Cardiograph, falling under CTH 9018 19 20; as well as ultra-violet or
        infra-red ray apparatus, falling under CTH 9018 20 00. However, as
        pointed out by the Revenue, the laser imagers are also compatible
        with machines falling under CTH 9022, titled ‘Apparatus based on the
        use of X-rays or of alpha, beta, gamma or other ionising radiations,
        whether or not for medical, surgical, dental or veterinary uses,
        including radiography or radiotherapy apparatus, X-ray tubes and
        other X-ray generators, high tension generators, control panels and
        desks, screens, examination or treatment tables, chairs and the like’.
        The laser imagers are compatible with CT apparatus, falling under
        CTH 9022 12 00; X-ray generators and apparatus (non-portable),
        falling under CTH 9022 14 10; Portable X-ray machines, falling
        under CTH 9022 14 20; and also with apparatus based on the use
        of alpha, beta, gamma or other ionising radiation, whether or not for
        medical, surgical, dental or veterinary uses, including radiography
        or radiotherapy apparatus; for medical, surgical, dental or veterinary


2     (1976) 2 SCC 273
[2026] 8 S.C.R.                                                         573

  M/s Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs


      uses, falling under CTH 9022 21 00. The issue, therefore, boils down
      to whether the laser imagers, which are compatible with machines
      falling under separate tariff headings, i.e., 9018 and 9022, would
      still qualify under Rule 2(b) or would necessarily have to be included
      under the residuary CTH 9033, as per Rule 2(c).
16.   To put it in simple terms, Rule 2(b) states to the effect that parts
      and accessories which are suitable for use ‘solely or principally’ with
      a particular kind of machine or with a number of machines under
      the same tariff heading are to be classified with such machine or
      machines. The contention of the appellant is that as the laser imager
      is compatible with several machines falling under CTH 9018, it would
      have to be clubbed with those machines and would fall under CTH
      9018 90 19. However, it is the Revenue’s argument that, as it is
      not only one tariff heading that is applicable to the possible uses
      of this accessory and such accessory can be used with machines
      falling under not just one tariff heading but with machines that fall
      under another tariff heading, Rule 2(b) cannot apply and Rule 2(c)
      would alone stand attracted.
17.   We find merit in the argument of the Revenue. When it speaks of
      accessories suitable for use ‘solely or principally’ with a particular
      kind of machine or a number of machines of the same tariff heading,
      Rule 2(b) clearly distinguishes and separates such accessories
      from those suitable for use with a number of machines falling
      under different tariff headings. We may note, in this regard, that
      the tariff duty for Magnetic Resonance Imaging apparatus, under
      CTH 9018 13 00, and also for Linear Ultrasound Scanners, falling
      under CTH 9018 12 10, was 7.5% at that time while the tariff duty
      for Computed Tomography apparatus, falling under CTH 9022 12
      00 was 10% per unit and the tariff duty for X-ray generators and
      apparatus (non-portable), falling under CTH 9022 14 10 was 15%
      per unit. In such a scenario, it defies logic and rationale to invoke
      Rule 2(b) for application to an accessory that may be clubbed with
      machines falling under CTH 9018 and also CTH 9022, when different
      rates of tariff duties would apply to such machines.
18.   We are, therefore, of the considered view that the interpretation
      placed upon Rule 2(b) by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax
      Appellate Tribunal, South Zone Bench, Chennai, is valid and correct.
      In consequence, accessories suitable for use with a number of
574                                                       [2026] 8 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


       machines, instruments or apparatus falling under the same tariff
       heading would have to be classified with such machines, instruments
       or apparatus, but when such accessories are suitable for use not
       only with machines, instruments or apparatus under a particular
       tariff heading but also with machines, instruments or apparatus
       falling under another tariff heading, they would necessarily have
       to be brought under residuary CTH 9033 00 00, being accessories
       suitable for use with machines, appliances, instruments or apparatus
       falling under Chapter 90, which have not been specified or included
       under a particular tariff heading.
19.    The appeal is bereft of merit and is dismissed accordingly.
       Pending applications shall stand disposed of.

       Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.




       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey