LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 12 August 2026

Can an importer rely for the first time before the Supreme Court on an exemption notification without having established foundational compliance with its conditions at any earlier stage?

M/s. Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs
2026 INSC 837 · Civil Appeal No. 3440 of 2025
Coram: Sanjay Kumar; Sanjeev Sachdeva
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.130E(b) Customs Act, 1962📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. Without first establishing foundational compliance with the conditions required to be satisfied under the notification, the appellant could not straightaway seek to rely upon it, particularly where the notification's specific tariff headings did not even mention the residuary heading under which its goods were classified.

Headnote

Customs Tariff Act, 1975 — CTH 9018 90 19 — CTH 9033 00 00 — Chapter 90, Note 2 — Rule 2(b) — Rule 2(c) — Accessory — Solely or principally — Customs Tariff Act, 1975 — CTH 9018 90 19 — Diagnostic apparatus — Accessory, not apparatus — Held: The laser 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; it is, therefore, an accessory to such equipment and cannot be classified under CTH 9018 90 19 as a diagnostic apparatus in its own right. (¶8, 9) Customs Tariff Act, 1975 — Chapter 90, Note 2(b) — Solely or principally — Different tariff headings — Held further: Rule 2(b) applies only where an accessory is suitable for use solely or principally with machines of a particular tariff heading; since the laser imagers are compatible with machines falling under both CTH 9018 and CTH 9022, Rule 2(b) cannot apply and residuary CTH 9033 00 00 alone is attracted under Rule 2(c). (¶16, 17) Customs Tariff Act, 1975 — CTH 9033 00 00 — Appeal dismissed — Held further: The interpretation placed upon Rule 2(b) by the Tribunal was valid and correct, and the appeal against classification of the laser imagers under residuary CTH 9033 00 00 was bereft of merit and dismissed. (¶18, 19)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 10Similarly, 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 first establishing foundational compliance with the conditions to be satisfied, the appellant cannot straightaway seek to rely upon this notification.
Acts & Sections
s.130E(b) Customs Act, 1962CTH 9018 90 19 Customs Tariff Act, 1975CTH 9033 00 00 Customs Tariff Act, 1975Ch.90 Note 2 Customs Tariff Act, 1975

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of M/s. Carestream Health India Pvt. Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, can imported laser imagers that interface with diagnostic machines like MRI and CT scanners but possess no independent diagnostic skill or capability be classified as 'diagnostic apparatus' under CTH 9018 90 19?Under Note 2(b) to Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, can an accessory compatible with machines falling under two different tariff headings still be classified with either heading under the 'solely or principally' rule?This Court in Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. C-Net Communication (India) (Pvt.) Ltd. classified a signal decoder by the test of the function it achieves in the use of the main apparatus — does that test assist an importer seeking to classify a laser imager as diagnostic apparatus rather than an accessory?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections