https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784267 The dominant issue was whether an imported intracranial "stent" used in endovascular aneurysm treatment is classifiable as an "artificial part of the body" under CTH 9021 39 00 or as an "other implanted appliance" under CTH 9021 90 90. Applying Heading 9021 and the anatomical replacement test, the authority held the device does not replicate or substitute any body part or vessel wall; it therapeutically acts as an implantable scaffold to retain embolization coils and achieve occlusion while the native vessel remains. Since the competing subheadings are residual and the goods are not prosthetic substitutes, classification under 9021 31 00/9021 39 00 was excluded, and the goods were classified under CTH 9021 90 90. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Jan 2026 08:18:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784267 The dominant issue was whether an imported intracranial "stent" used in endovascular aneurysm treatment is classifiable as an "artificial part of the body" under CTH 9021 39 00 or as an "other implanted appliance" under CTH 9021 90 90. Applying Heading 9021 and the anatomical replacement test, the authority held the device does not replicate or substitute any body part or vessel wall; it therapeutically acts as an implantable scaffold to retain embolization coils and achieve occlusion while the native vessel remains. Since the competing subheadings are residual and the goods are not prosthetic substitutes, classification under 9021 31 00/9021 39 00 was excluded, and the goods were classified under CTH 9021 90 90. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784267