Trade Law Daily is a service of Warren Communications News.
Subscriber Login

Harmonized Tariff Schedule

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) provide classification provisions and duty rates for almost every item that exists. It is a system of classifying and taxing all goods imported into the United States. The HTS is based on the international Harmonized System, which is a global standard for naming and describing trade products, and consists of a hierarchical structure that assigns a specific code and rate to each type of merchandise for duty, quota, and statistical purposes. The HTS was made effective on January 1, 1989, replacing the former Tariff Schedules of the United States. It is maintained by the U.S. International Trade Commission, but CBP is responsible for interpreting and enforcing the HTS. 

to
articlessource documents
Refine Topic Search
Clear Terms

Search Primer

Term list: Separate terms with spaces, not commas or semicolons.

Multi-word term: Place inside quotes to ensure an exact match (e.g. "surrogate value").

Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead. (e.g., CIT).

Required term: If a term must be included in any resulting articles, prefix it with a plus sign (e.g., CBP +ruling).

Excluded term: If a term should be excluded from any articles being found, prefix it with a minus sign (e.g., ruling -NY).

Simplest form: Use the simplest form of a term (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls") or "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").

Plaintiffs Ask Court to Reverse Dismissals in LED Lamp Customs Spat Due to 'Excusable Neglect'
October 22, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

The Court of International Trade should reconsider its dismissals of multiple classification lawsuits over LED lamps because the events that resulted in the dismissals constituted "excusable neglect," counsel for Target and other LED importers argued in an Oct. 15 motion. In 10 cases making the classification challenge, the plaintiffs' counsel, John Peterson of Neville Peterson, argued that the plaintiffs' failure to extend the case's stay on the Customs Case Management Calendar "reasonably resulted from events both practical and circumstantial" (Target General Merchandise, Inc. v. United States, CIT #14-00283).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
Importer Files Three Complaints at CIT Seeking Reclassification of Wood Stile and Rail Imports
October 21, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer Composite Technology International filed a trio of complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 20 challenging CBP's tariff classification of its wooden stile and rail imports. When it denied Composite's protests, CBP pointed to a prior CIT ruling holding that the wooden stiles and rails fall under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4421.90.97, but Composite argues for classification under subheading 4412.99.51 (Composite Technology International, Inc. v. United States, CIT #17-00175, #17-00129, #17-00178).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
Litigation Kicks Off Over Proper Classification of Certain HP Monitors
October 19, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Taiwanese manufacturer Innolux Corporation launched its case against CBP's classification of the company's shipments of Hewlett-Packard 25-inch monitors, in an Oct. 15 complaint at the Court of International Trade. The case was originally filed in 2013 but placed on the reserve calendar, with counsel for Innolux filing for extensions of time to remain on the reserve calendar beginning in December 2014 (Innolux Corporation v. United States, CIT #13-00272).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases
Importer Kicks Off Classification Row Over Hoverboards
October 18, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Electric scooters, known has hoverboards, were assessed duties under the wrong Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading upon entry into the U.S., importer 3BTech said in an Oct. 15 complaint at the Court of International Trade. Kicking off litigation in its customs battle, 3BTech argued that even if CBP's HTS subheading of choice is correct, the products were granted Section 301 China tariff exclusions (3BTech, Inc. v. United States, CIT #20-00159).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, Harmonized Tariff Schedule