The subject merchandise is the Insight Infrared Video Goggles, a medical diagnostic device worn by a patient during clinical examination for vestibular disorders. The goggles resemble a virtual reality headset and consist of a plastic enclosure (body) that goes around the eyes to block out all light, attached with a front panel (cover) and a silicone strap with adjusters.
The front panel contains two infrared cameras, two switches, and a cable assembly. Each camera has two infrared LEDs and one visible light LED embedded on the chip and can detect both visible and infrared light. The visible light LED is activated only when the clinician toggles the switch on the front panel. The goggles do not have their own power source or software — they rely entirely on a connected desktop or laptop computer for both power and the off-the-shelf video viewing software used to display, record, and store the captured images.
The device is used by trained medical professionals — audiologists, ENT doctors, and physicians — to observe a patient’s eye movements under two lighting conditions: (1) infrared-only (complete darkness from the patient’s perspective), which reveals abnormal eye movements that only occur when visible light is absent; and (2) visible light, which reveals eye movements that are suppressed under light conditions. The clinician switches between the two modes during the examination to perform differential diagnosis of vestibular disorders. The captured video images are transmitted to the connected computer where the clinician views and analyzes them using video viewing software applied with a specific diagnostic template.
The prior ruling (NY N308716) classified the goggles under subheading 9018.90 (other instruments and appliances used in medical sciences — optical instruments). CBP revoked this ruling and reclassified the goggles.
COMPETING HEADINGS
Heading 85.25 — “Transmission apparatus for radio-broadcasting or television, whether or not incorporating reception apparatus or sound recording or reproducing apparatus; television cameras, digital cameras and video camera recorders.”
Claim: The goggles contain two cameras that capture images, convert them into electronic signals, and transmit those signals as video images to an external computer — matching the EN 85.25 definition of “television cameras” precisely. EN 85.25(B) states television cameras are “cameras that capture images and convert them into an electronic signal that is … transmitted as a video image to a location outside the camera for viewing or remote recording.” The cameras have no inbuilt recording capability and must be used with an ADP machine — also matching the EN description (“some of these cameras may also be used with automatic data processing machines”). If the goggles are “television cameras” of heading 85.25, they are excluded from Chapter 90 entirely by Note 1(h) to Chapter 90.
Heading 90.18 — “Instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences, including scintigraphic apparatus, other electro-medical apparatus and sight-testing instruments; parts and accessories thereof.”
Claim: The goggles are instruments used in medical sciences — specifically designed for and used exclusively by trained medical professionals to diagnose vestibular disorders. They are not general-purpose cameras repurposed for medical use; they are purpose-built diagnostic devices with a form factor (VR-headset-style enclosure that blocks all light), integrated switchable IR/visible LED system, and patient-worn design that have no application outside clinical vestibular examination. EN 90.18 states the heading covers “a very wide range of instruments and appliances which, in the vast majority of cases, are used only in professional practice (e.g., by doctors, surgeons, dentists, veterinary surgeons, midwives), either to make a diagnosis, to prevent or treat an illness or to operate, etc.”
Subheading dispute within heading 90.18:
Subheading 9018.19 — “Electro-diagnostic apparatus (including apparatus for functional exploratory examination or for checking physiological parameters): Other.”
Subheading 9018.90 — “Other instruments and appliances and parts and accessories thereof.”
The original ruling (NY N308716) placed the goggles in 9018.90 as “optical instruments.” The revocation ruling reclassified them to 9018.19 as “electro-diagnostic apparatus.”
THE CONFLICT
This scenario presents a two-tier classification conflict:
Tier 1 — Cross-Section heading competition (85.25 vs. 90.18): The goggles contain cameras that facially match the EN 85.25 television camera definition. However, the goggles as a whole are purpose-built medical diagnostic instruments. Two interlocking Legal Notes create a routing tension:
- Note 1(m) to Section XVI states: “This Section does not cover … (m) Articles of Chapter 90.” If the goggles are articles of Chapter 90, they are excluded from all of Section XVI (including heading 85.25).
- Note 1(h) to Chapter 90 states: “This Chapter does not cover … (h) television cameras, digital cameras and video camera recorders (heading 85.25).” If the goggles are “television cameras” of heading 85.25, they are excluded from Chapter 90 (including heading 90.18).
These two notes create a circular routing tension: each Section/Chapter excludes articles that belong in the other. The resolution depends on the product’s true identity — is it fundamentally a television camera that happens to be used in medicine, or is it fundamentally a medical diagnostic instrument that happens to incorporate cameras?
Tier 2 — Subheading competition within heading 90.18 (9018.19 vs. 9018.90): If heading 90.18 prevails, GRI 6 requires determination of whether the goggles are “electro-diagnostic apparatus” (9018.19) or “other instruments” (9018.90). This turns on the meaning of the undefined term “electro-diagnostic.”
ANALYSIS & RESOLUTION
Step 1: GIR 1 — Tier 1: Television Camera (85.25) vs. Medical Instrument (90.18)
The camera components in isolation match the EN 85.25 television camera description: they capture images, convert them to electronic signals, and transmit the signals as video to an external location (the connected computer) for viewing or remote recording. They have no inbuilt recording capability. They are used with an ADP machine.
However, the goggles in their entirety are not television cameras. CBP identified several characteristics and functions that distinguish the goggles from the articles contemplated by heading 85.25:
Form factor: The goggles resemble a virtual reality headset, are worn by a patient, and have a plastic enclosure that goes around the eyes to block out all light. Television cameras are mounted on tripods (broadcast cameras) or fitted above screens (webcams). A patient-worn, light-blocking enclosure is, at best, atypical of television cameras.
Camera orientation: The cameras are pointed inward at the patient’s eyes, not outward at the world. This inward orientation — capturing the patient’s own eye movements for clinical observation — signifies the device’s core medical diagnostic function, not a general-purpose image capture function.
Integrated diagnostic lighting system: The infrared and visible light LEDs, controlled by a clinician-operated switch, are not merely providing illumination. They are performing a differential diagnostic function: certain abnormal eye movements occur only in the absence of visible light, while others are suppressed by visible light. The clinician toggles between modes to observe how eye movements are affected under different lighting scenarios. This switchable IR/visible system is an integral part of the diagnostic methodology, not a camera accessory.
Exclusive medical use: The goggles are used solely by trained medical professionals (audiologists, ENT doctors, physicians) to diagnose vestibular disorders. They have no consumer, commercial, or general-purpose application.
Conclusion on Tier 1: The goggles, taken in their entirety, are instruments used in medical sciences of heading 90.18, not “television cameras” of heading 85.25. Note 1(h) to Chapter 90 does not exclude them because they are not “television cameras” — they are medical diagnostic instruments that incorporate camera components as a subsidiary means to their diagnostic function. In turn, Note 1(m) to Section XVI excludes them from heading 85.25 because they are articles of Chapter 90.
EN 90.18 confirms: the heading covers instruments “which may be equipped with optical devices” and which “may also make use of electricity, either as motive power or for transmission, or as a preventive, curative or diagnostic agent.” The goggles’ cameras are “optical devices” equipped on a medical instrument, not standalone television cameras.
Step 2: GIR 6 — Tier 2: Subheading 9018.19 (Electro-diagnostic) vs. 9018.90 (Other)
GRI 6 requires that subheading classification be determined according to the terms of the subheadings at the same indentation level. Subheading 9018.19 (“Electro-diagnostic apparatus”) and subheading 9018.90 (“Other instruments and appliances”) are at the same indentation level and are directly comparable. Under GRI 3(a) applied mutatis mutandis via GRI 6, the more specific description prevails over “other.”
The meaning of “electro-diagnostic”:
The term is not defined in the HTSUS or ENs. CBP consulted Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, which provides two senses:
- Broad: “The use of electronic devices for diagnostic purposes.”
- Narrow (by convention): “The studies performed in the EMG laboratory, i.e., nerve conduction studies and needle electrode examination.”
CBP adopted the broad definition. The EN 90.18(V)(1) exemplar list supports this interpretation — it includes a broadly described category at item (x): “Diagnostic apparatus incorporating or operating in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine for processing and visualising clinical data, etc.” This catch-all exemplar does not require the device to perform electromyography or nerve conduction studies. It requires only that the apparatus be: (a) diagnostic, (b) incorporating or operating in conjunction with an ADP machine, and (c) used for processing and visualizing clinical data.
Application to the goggles:
The goggles satisfy all three elements of EN 90.18(V)(1)(x):
- (a) Diagnostic: The goggles are used by trained clinicians to diagnose vestibular disorders by observing abnormal eye movements — this is a diagnostic function
- (b) Operating in conjunction with an ADP machine: The goggles have no power source or software; they rely on a connected computer for power, video processing, display, and storage — they operate in conjunction with an ADP machine
- (c) Processing and visualizing clinical data: The captured infrared/visible light video images of the patient’s eye movements are transmitted to the computer where off-the-shelf video software with a diagnostic template processes and displays them for the clinician’s analysis — this is clinical data visualization
The goggles further meet the Stedman’s broad definition: they are electronic devices (infrared cameras, LEDs, switches, cable assembly — all electrically powered) used for diagnostic purposes (vestibular disorder diagnosis through observation of abnormal eye movements).
A commenter argued for the narrow definition, citing an eMedicine source limiting “electrodiagnosis” to electrophysiology, electromyography, and nerve conduction studies. CBP rejected this argument because: (1) the commenter did not address the broad first sense in Stedman’s; (2) the eMedicine definition closely matches only the narrow second sense; (3) the EN 90.18(V)(1)(x) exemplar — broadly described diagnostic apparatus operating with an ADP machine — weighs against a narrow interpretation; and (4) the commenter failed to demonstrate why the legal text necessitates a strictly narrow reading.
The commenter also cited HQ H304293 (blood pressure monitors classified as electro-diagnostic in 9018.19 because they “utilize electrical components in the performance of a diagnosis”) and argued the goggles differ because they do not check physiological parameters. CBP rejected this distinction: the goggles do utilize electrical components (infrared cameras, LEDs) in the performance of a diagnosis (capturing abnormal eye movements under controlled lighting conditions for vestibular disorder assessment). The function is squarely within “the use of electronic devices for diagnostic purposes.”
Result: The goggles are “electro-diagnostic apparatus” of subheading 9018.19, not “other instruments” of subheading 9018.90. Because 9018.19 provides the more specific description (electro-diagnostic apparatus vs. the residual “other”), GRI 6 (applying GRI 3(a) mutatis mutandis) requires classification in 9018.19. The “other” provision of 9018.90 can only apply if the product cannot be classified in a preceding provision.
Final Classification
9018.19.95 — Instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences: Electro-diagnostic apparatus (including apparatus for functional exploratory examination or for checking physiological parameters): Other: Other: Other.
Resolved by GRIs 1 and 6. Note 1(m) to Section XVI excludes the goggles from heading 85.25; Note 1(h) to Chapter 90 does not apply because the goggles are not “television cameras.” Within heading 90.18, GRI 6 (applying GRI 3(a) mutatis mutandis) places the goggles in the more specific 9018.19 over the residual 9018.90.
Real-world authority: CBP Headquarters Ruling HQ H334777 (January 2, 2025) — Insight Infrared Video Goggles → 9018.19.95, HTSUS. This ruling revoked NY N308716 (January 28, 2020), which had incorrectly classified the goggles under 9018.90.20.
KEY CLASSIFICATION PRINCIPLES
- Note 1(m) to Section XVI and Note 1(h) to Chapter 90 create interlocking exclusion gates that resolve based on product identity, not component identity. When a medical instrument incorporates cameras, the question is not whether the cameras, isolated, match heading 85.25 — it is whether the complete article, taken in its entirety, is a “television camera” or a “medical instrument.” If the article’s form factor, design intent, integrated clinical functionality, and exclusive professional use establish it as a medical instrument, Note 1(m) excludes it from Section XVI, and Note 1(h) does not activate because the article is not a “television camera” within the meaning of heading 85.25.
- “Electro-diagnostic apparatus” under subheading 9018.19 carries both a broad and narrow meaning; the broad sense governs for tariff classification. Stedman’s Medical Dictionary defines “electrodiagnosis” broadly as “the use of electronic devices for diagnostic purposes” and narrowly as EMG laboratory studies. The EN 90.18(V)(1)(x) exemplar — “diagnostic apparatus incorporating or operating in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine for processing and visualising clinical data” — supports the broad interpretation. A device need not perform electromyography or nerve conduction to qualify as electro-diagnostic.
- GRI 6 requires subheading-level specificity before the residual “other” provision can apply. Subheading 9018.19 (electro-diagnostic apparatus) and subheading 9018.90 (other instruments) are at the same indentation level. By operation of GRI 3(a) applied mutatis mutandis through GRI 6, the more specific description (9018.19) must be preferred over the general “other” (9018.90). A product can only be classified in 9018.90 if it cannot be placed in any preceding provision at the same level.
- The “mere electronic functioning” principle is necessary but not sufficient for electro-diagnostic classification. The fact that a device functions electronically does not, by itself, make it electro-diagnostic. However, when a device uses electrical components (cameras, LEDs, switches) specifically to generate clinical data (images of abnormal eye movements) that a medical professional uses for diagnostic assessment, it crosses the threshold from “functioning electronically” to “using electronic devices for diagnostic purposes.”
- EN exemplar lists in heading 90.18(V)(1) are illustrative, not exhaustive, and include a catch-all category. Item (x) — diagnostic apparatus operating with an ADP machine for visualizing clinical data — is deliberately broad and is not limited to the specific modalities listed in items (i)–(ix) (electrocardiographs, ultrasonic scanning, MRI, etc.). A novel diagnostic device that operates via connected computer software to visualize clinical data can qualify under this exemplar even if it does not employ any of the traditional electrophysiology techniques.
Infrared Video Goggles: The Camera That Diagnoses Instead of Broadcasting
| Heading | Why It Is Considered | Reason for Rejection / Acceptance |
| Heading 85.25 (Television cameras) | Goggles contain two cameras that capture images, convert to electronic signals, and transmit video to a connected computer for viewing/recording — matching the EN 85.25 television camera definition when cameras are considered in isolation | ❌ Rejected — the goggles in their entirety are not television cameras; patient-worn VR-headset form factor, light-blocking enclosure, inward-facing cameras, switchable IR/visible diagnostic lighting system, and exclusive clinical use distinguish them from television cameras; Note 1(m) to Section XVI excludes articles of Chapter 90 |
| Heading 90.18, sub. 9018.90 (Other instruments and appliances — optical) | Goggles are medical instruments with optical components (cameras, LEDs); original ruling NY N308716 classified here as “optical instruments and appliances” | ❌ Rejected at subheading level — GRI 6 (applying GRI 3(a) mutatis mutandis) requires the more specific 9018.19 to be preferred over the residual “other” of 9018.90; subheadings are at the same indentation level and directly comparable; the goggles meet the terms of 9018.19, so 9018.90 cannot apply |
| Heading 90.18, sub. 9018.19 (Electro-diagnostic apparatus — other) | Goggles are electronic devices (IR cameras, LEDs, switches powered via connected computer) used for diagnostic purposes (vestibular disorder diagnosis); operate in conjunction with an ADP machine for processing and visualizing clinical data (eye movement images) | ✅ Classified here via GRIs 1 and 6 — meets Stedman’s broad definition of electrodiagnosis (“use of electronic devices for diagnostic purposes”); matches EN 90.18(V)(1)(x) exemplar (diagnostic apparatus operating with ADP machine for visualizing clinical data); electrical components directly enable the diagnostic function |
| Commenter’s narrow interpretation | Argued “electro-diagnostic” should be limited to electrophysiology, EMG, and nerve conduction studies; goggles don’t check physiological parameters | ⚠️ Rejected by CBP — Stedman’s first sense is broad; EN 90.18(V)(1)(x) is a broadly described catch-all exemplar with no EMG/nerve conduction requirement; commenter failed to address the broad definition or reconcile the EN inclusion |
CONCLUSION
This scenario involves a cross-Section heading competition between 85.25 and 90.18, two interlocking Legal Note exclusion gates (Note 1(m) to Section XVI and Note 1(h) to Chapter 90) creating a circular routing tension, a GRI 6 subheading dispute over the undefined term “electro-diagnostic” requiring dictionary and EN analysis, a rejected commenter argument for a narrow interpretation, and a revocation of a prior ruling that had incorrectly placed the goggles in the residual subheading.