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").

DOJ Fends Off Nucor Attacks, Holds That South Korean Government Did Not Give Electricity for LTAR
August 25, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Plaintiff Nucor Corporation mischaracterized, oversimplified and took the Commerce Department's remand results out of context in its comments on a submission in a case stemming from the agency's countervailing duty investigation on carbon and alloy steel cut-to-length plate from South Korea, the Department of Justice said in Aug. 18 comments at the Court of International Trade, backing the remand redetermination. DOJ continued to back Commerce's contention that the South Korean government did not provide a countervailable subsidy to producers of hot-rolled steel through cheap electricity. Contrary to what Nucor's comments assert, Commerce adhered to the statute when completing its less-than-adequate remuneration analysis in the CVD case and properly accounted for the Korean Power Exchange's role in the electricity market, DOJ said (POSCO, et al. v. U.S., CIT #16-00227).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases
Logitech Wins Customs Row, Is Granted Duty-Free Treatment for Webcams
August 24, 2021 |Bulletin

The Court of International Trade ruled that Logitech's webcams and ConferenceCams shall be classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 8517, receiving duty-free treatment. In an Aug. 24 ruling, Judge Leo Gordon applied a use analysis to the webcams and ConferenceCams to determine if they belonged under subheading 8517, as Logitech suggested, or subheading 8525, dutiable at 2.1%, as the government suggested. Ultimately finding that the goods fit under both headings, Gordon went with 8517 as the proper classification for the products since it describes them "with a greater degree of accuracy and certainty."

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings
Steel Importers Blast Section 232 Exclusion Process, Call Government Solution 'Unconscionable'
August 18, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

The U.S.' voluntary remand request in two Section 232 exclusion cases should be denied in its current form since the government's delayed, tranched solution is "unconscionable," steel importers Allegheny Technologies Inc. and California Steel Industries argued in an Aug. 16 reply brief. Given that Section 232 steel and aluminum tariff exclusion requests are supposed to be decided within 106 days, the Commerce Department's proposed nine to 12 month schedule to reconsider CSI's exclusion requests is "unreasonable" with a "nonsensical" rationale, CSI argued (Allegheny Technologies Incorporated et al. v. U.S., CIT #20-03923)(California Steel Industries, Inc. v. U.S., CIT #21-00015).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Section 232 Exclusions