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").

Importer Scores Lower Duty Rate for Pet Carriers After Settling Suit With CBP
March 11, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

CBP and importer Motivation Design settled a customs case on pet carriers, with the government agreeing to go with the importer's preferred tariff classification for a lower duty rate. Filing a stipulated judgment at the Court of International Trade, the parties agreed that CBP will classify the pet carriers under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6307.90.98, dutiable at 7%, as "other textile articles," instead of subheading 4202.92.90, dutiable at 17.6%, as a case with outer surface of textile materials. CBP classified the goods under subheading 4202.92.90 at entry (Motivation Design v. United States, CIT # 15-00212).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
US Files Cross-Motion for Judgment in Classification Dispute Regarding Mastectomy Brassieres
March 11, 2025 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

The U.S. filed a March 7 cross-motion for judgment in a classification dispute brought by mastectomy brassiere importer Amoena USA. It said the products fall under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading for bras, not for accessories to artificial body parts (Amoena USA Corp. v. United States, CIT #20-00100).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, CBP CROSS Rulings
US Tells CIT Not to Allow New Claim Alleging CBP Established Treatment of Pop-Up Tents
March 11, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The Court of International Trade should not give importer Under the Weather leave to amend its complaint to add a claim in its customs suit on the tariff treatment of its see-through pop-up tent "pods," the U.S. said in a brief filed last week. The government said the proposed amendment to Under the Weather's complaint is "untimely," since it's "now years after" the importer "could have presented its claim to Customs," adding that the claim also fails to state a valid argument (Under the Weather v. United States, CIT # 21-00211).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases
In Complaint, German Importer Says CBP Sought Duties for US-Origin Product Returned for Repairs
March 7, 2025 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

In a March 5 complaint before the Court of International Trade, German importer MTU Maintenance Hannover brought a single claim disputing CBP’s classification of a mid-frame assembly used in GE Aerospace’s LM2500 gas turbine engine. It said it had just sent the U.S.-origin product back for repairs (MTU Maintenance Hannover v. United States, CIT # 25-00023).

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