Because The Imager Worked With More Than One Machine, It Pays More
An importer wanted its medical laser imagers classified with diagnostic apparatus. Because they also work with other machines, the residuary heading takes them.
The Court upheld the Tribunal and held the laser imagers fall under residuary Customs Tariff Heading 9033 00 00, not 9018 90 19. Accessories usable with machines under a single heading go with those machines; but where an accessory is suitable for use with machines under more than one heading, it must be brought under the residuary heading. The appeal was dismissed as bereft of merit.
- One heading, and you go with the machine. Two headings, and the residue takes you.
- Rule 2(c) does the work where an accessory serves machines across headings.
- A notification is not a shortcut. Foundational compliance with its conditions has to be shown first.
- New points get a cold reception. The notification was raised for the first time in the Supreme Court.
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Bench
- Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 837
- Reported
- [2026] 8 S.C.R. 564
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 3440 of 2025
- Decided
- 12 August 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; classification under residuary CTH 9033 00 00 upheld
The competing headings
The importer claimed its laser imagers under Customs Tariff Heading 9018 90 19, the residuary clause for other such apparatus, arguing the imager was not a part or accessory but an apparatus used for diagnostic purposes and used with machines under 9018.
The Revenue's position was that the imager is also usable with machines outside 9018, and therefore falls within residuary CTH 9033 00 00 — parts and accessories not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 90.
The rule the Court applied
Accessories suitable for use with a number of machines, instruments or apparatus falling under the same tariff heading are classified with those machines.
But where such accessories are suitable for use not only with machines under one heading but also with machines under another, they must be brought under residuary CTH 9033 00 00.
The Tribunal's view was accordingly held valid and correct, and the appeal was dismissed as bereft of merit.
The notification point
The importer relied on Notification No. 12/2012 of 17 March 2012. At entry 473, goods required for medical, surgical, dental or veterinary use under headings 9018 to 9022 attract a standard 5 per cent rate.
CTH 9033 finds no mention there. The annexure also sets out conditions to be satisfied to claim the benefit.
The appellant had never relied on the notification earlier and raised it for the first time before the Supreme Court. Without first establishing foundational compliance with its conditions, it could not straightaway rely on it.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
How is an accessory classified when it fits several machines?
If they all fall under one heading, it goes with them. If they fall under different headings, it goes into the residuary heading.
Can I raise an exemption notification for the first time on appeal?
The Court declined to allow it here without foundational compliance with the notification's conditions being established.
Arguing a customs classification dispute
- List every machine the article can be used with. That list decides which rule applies.
- Argue apparatus versus accessory first; the interpretive rules follow from that characterisation.
- Raise any exemption notification at the first stage, and plead compliance with each of its conditions.
- Check whether the notification's table names your heading at all before building on it.
Source. Supreme Court of India, 2026 INSC 837, [2026] 8 S.C.R. 564, Civil Appeal No. 3440 of 2025, decided 12 August 2026 by Justice Sanjay Kumar, Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks Supreme Court of India and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in