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").

Use Availability Is Enough for Duty-Free Classification for Tools Temporarily Exported, Porsche Says
July 6, 2021 |Litigation

Tools of the trade returned after temporary use abroad do not have to been actually used to be eligible for duty-free treatment under subheading 9801.00.85 Porsche Motorsports North America, said in a reply brief filed June 25. CBP has ruled in the past that it’s enough for goods to be made available for use to qualify for duty-free treatment, PMNA said in the brief, filed in support of its motion for judgment in a case at the Court of International Trade (Porsche Motorsports North America, Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 16-00182).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, CBP CROSS Rulings
Commerce Sticks With Surrogate Country in Activated Carbon AD Case Following CIT Remand
July 2, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The Commerce Department continued to use Malaysia as its primary surrogate country in an antidumping administrative review after the Court of International Trade told the agency to further explain the departure from using Romania, Commerce said in June 30 remand results. The agency did, however, grant that Romania classifies as a "significant producer" of activated carbon, the subject merchandise, a departure from its final results. The agency also switched to using Malaysian surrogate values for a key input in activated carbon for most of the mandatory respondents' suppliers.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity, Country of origin cases, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Antidumping Surrogate Values
Circuit Board Assembly Importer Wants Stay of Customs Case While Settlement Is Discussed
July 1, 2021 |Litigation

Plexus Corp., the plaintiff in a customs classification case over printed circuit board assemblies used in audio-visual transmission equipment, wants proceedings stayed pending the Department of Justice's consideration of its settlement offer. According to the June 30 motion to stay in the Court of International Trade, Plexus said that a stay would help avoid "incurring unnecessary significant additional expenses" should the settlement offer be accepted (Plexus Corp. v. United States, CIT #13-00343).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
DOJ Says Importer Can't Link Prior Disclosure to Classification Case Victory
June 30, 2021 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

OtterBox can't get refunds on a prior disclosure it made on imports of smartphone covers, even though it prevailed in a Court of International Trade case on entries of the same product, the Department of Justice said in a June 25 reply brief to OtterBox's motion to enforce the court's judgment. DOJ said CIT does not have jurisdiction over the prior disclosure in dispute, making OtterBox's bid an attempt to get a refund to which it is not entitled (Otter Products, LLC v. United States, CIT #13-00269).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings