CESTAT Upholds Classification of Glucometers Under Customs Tariff Heading 9027, Dismisses Revenue’s Appeal

June 23, 2026 : In a significant ruling on customs tariff classification, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and reaffirmed that blood glucose monitoring systems, commonly known as glucometers, are correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9027 as instruments for chemical analysis. The Tribunal held that the analytical function of a glucometer, rather than its medical application, determines its classification under the Customs Tariff.

The decision came in an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva, challenging an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), which had ruled in favour of Life Scan Medical Devices India Pvt. Ltd., a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) importer. The dispute centred on the customs classification of the “One Touch Select Simple Blood Glucose Monitoring System” and the “One Touch Select Plus Simple Blood Glucose Monitoring System.” While the importer classified the products under CTH 90278090 as instruments for chemical analysis, the Customs Department argued that they should fall under CTH 90189099 as medical diagnostic instruments.

The goods had initially been cleared through provisional assessment while the Special Valuation Branch examined the declared transaction value. After completion of the valuation proceedings, Customs finalised the assessment by classifying the products under CTH 90189099 and demanded differential customs duty along with applicable interest. The importer challenged the assessment before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal, prompting the Revenue to approach the Tribunal.

Before the Tribunal, the Revenue argued that Heading 9018 is the more specific tariff entry because glucometers are used for medical diagnosis. It also contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly interpreted the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN) Explanatory Notes, overlooked the legislative intent behind Customs Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30 June 2017 and incorrectly relied upon judicial precedents. According to the department, the essential nature of the product was that of a medical diagnostic instrument.

The importer, on the other hand, relied upon earlier judicial precedents, including the Bombay High Court’s decision in Ascensia Diabetes Care India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which had affirmed CESTAT’s earlier ruling in Bayer Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. holding that glucometers are classifiable under Heading 9027. The respondent also pointed out that the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against the Bombay High Court’s judgment had already been dismissed by the Supreme Court in October 2023. It further relied upon the Tribunal’s subsequent decision in Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva v. Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., where the same issue had again been decided against the Revenue.

After examining the rival tariff headings, the Tribunal explained that Heading 9018 covers instruments used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences, whereas Heading 9027 specifically relates to instruments used for physical or chemical analysis. It observed that although a glucometer is widely used in healthcare, its primary technical function is to analyse the glucose concentration in a blood sample through a chemical or enzymatic reaction occurring on the test strip before displaying the glucose reading.

Explaining the scientific functioning of the device, the Bench noted that a glucometer analyses a biological sample, detects glucose through enzymes such as glucose oxidase or glucose dehydrogenase and quantifies glucose concentration based on the resulting reaction signal. According to the Tribunal, this process is essentially one of chemical analysis and therefore falls squarely within the scope of Heading 9027.

Rejecting the Revenue’s contention that the device merely assists medical professionals, the Tribunal made an important observation. It stated, “The measurement of the blood-glucose level by a Glucometer is itself the diagnostic step.” The Bench further observed that “The analytical function of the device is thus integral to, and not divorced from, its clinical use.” The Tribunal clarified that merely because an instrument is used in the field of medicine does not automatically bring it under Heading 9018 when a more appropriate tariff heading describing its analytical function is available.

The Bench also emphasised that the legal position now stands consistently settled through multiple judicial pronouncements. It noted that CESTAT’s earlier decision in Bayer Pharmaceuticals had been approved by the Bombay High Court in Ascensia Diabetes Care India Pvt. Ltd., and the Revenue’s challenge before the Supreme Court had failed. Subsequently, the Tribunal’s decision in Abbott Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. was also upheld after the Supreme Court dismissed the department’s Civil Appeals in February 2026.

Considering the settled legal position as well as the scientific nature of the product, the Tribunal concluded that glucometers merit classification under Customs Tariff Heading 9027. It held that the Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly allowed the importer’s appeal and found no legal basis to interfere with the order. Consequently, the Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.

The ruling carries considerable significance for importers, customs authorities and manufacturers of medical diagnostic devices. It reinforces the principle that tariff classification must be based on the essential technical function of a product rather than its end use alone. The decision also promotes certainty in customs assessments by reaffirming a line of precedents that has already received approval from both the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court. Importers dealing in glucometers and similar analytical devices are therefore likely to benefit from greater consistency in customs classification disputes under the Customs Tariff Act and the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Customs Tariff.

Case Reference: Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva v. Life Scan Medical Devices India Pvt. Ltd., Customs Appeal No. 86911 of 2023.