Tribunal classifies Cobra Scan X-Ray Digitizer as diagnostic apparatus under 9018.19

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, classifying the Cobra Scan X-Ray Digitizer and X SCAN tele radiology and tele medicine software under sub-heading 9018.19 as "diagnostic apparatus incorporating or operating in conjunction with an ADP machine." The decision emphasized the specialized nature and functions of the goods, determining that they were not merely scanners or digitizers but equipment used for processing and visualizing clinical data in medical settings. The appellants were granted consequential benefits as the Tribunal set aside the original classification and ordered the goods to be classified under sub-heading 9018.19.

---

---

Issues: Classification of goods under sub-heading 9018.19 as "other electro diagnostic equipment" or under sub-heading 8471.90 as a unit of ADP machines.

In this case, the issue revolves around the correct classification of the impugned goods, which are Cobra Scan X-Ray Digitizer along with X SCAN tele radiology and tele medicine software. The appellants claimed classification under sub-heading 9018.19 as "other electro diagnostic equipment," while the original authority classified the goods as a unit of ADP machines under sub-heading 8471.90. The lower appellate authority, however, ordered classification under sub-heading 8471.60.

The literature presented shows that the impugned goods are dedicated medical equipment capable of scanning x-rays and correcting over and under-exposed x-rays for better diagnosis by doctors. The machine is specifically designed to digitize x-ray films up to 14" x 18", covering various types of films such as CT Scan, MRI, Ultrasound, and Radiography. Additionally, a certificate from the Department of Radiology, KEM Hospital, confirms that the instrument is exclusively used by hospitals, clinics, and mobile hospitals for diagnostic purposes.

After considering the functions and specialized nature of the impugned goods, the Tribunal opined that they should not be classified as a mere scanner or digitizer deserving classification as a unit of ADP machines. Instead, the goods were deemed to be a "diagnostic apparatus incorporating or operating in conjunction with an ADP machine for processing and visualizing clinical data," falling under sub-heading 9018.19 as claimed by the appellants. It was also noted that similar equipment in other cases had been classified under sub-heading 9018.19 by the department.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential benefits. The judgment highlights the importance of considering the specific functions and intended use of goods in determining their correct classification under the relevant tariff headings.

---