Supreme Court of India· 12 August 2026

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?

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. Rule 2(b) applies only to accessories suitable for use solely or principally with machines of a particular tariff heading or with machines of the same heading; an accessory compatible with machines falling under different tariff headings, such as both CTH 9018 and CTH 9022, cannot be classified under Rule 2(b) and falls instead under residuary CTH 9033 00 00 by Rule 2(c).

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 16To 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.

Paragraph 17We 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.

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?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?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?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections