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. "China import").

Acronyms: Use all capital letters to ensure the search is not looking for that letter sequence instead.

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

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

Singular form: Always use the singular form when doing multi-word terms (e.g. "russian export control" instead of "russian export controls").

Shortest word form: When you have different word forms in a quoted (multi-word) term, you want to only include the shortest version if it is the last part of the expression (e.g., "entity list" instead of "entity listing" or "entity listed").

US Opposes Importer's Bid to Compel CBP Deliberations on Classification of 3D Printing Pens
February 6, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The U.S. opposed a motion from importer Quantified Operations seeking to compel the government to produce unredacted internal CBP communications on the classification of the company's 3D printing pens, arguing at the Court of International Trade that the communications are irrelevant and otherwise protected by the "deliberative-process privilege" (Quantified Operations v. United States, CIT # 22-00178).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
Removal of Goods From FTZ for Consumption Not 'Importation,' US Says
February 6, 2025 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

The U.S. reiterated its stance that a cigarette seller’s products were considered imported on the date of arrival for admission to a foreign-trade zone, not the date on which they left it for domestic sale. It asked the Court of International Trade to dismiss the importer’s complaint with prejudice (King Maker Marketing v. United States, CIT # 24-00134).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
Importer of Enriched Ammonium Sulfate Says Scope Ruling Should Have Looked to K(1) Factors
February 5, 2025 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, an importer of enriched isotope compounds, supported Jan. 23 its October motion for judgment (see 2410250044) over the government’s opposition (see 2412260034). It again said its products aren’t covered by the relevant antidumping duty and countervailing duty orders -- or, alternatively, if the orders are ambiguous, the Commerce Department must conduct an analysis of k(1) factors (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories v. United States, CIT # 23-00080).

Topics:Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Differential Pricing Analysis
Clash Over Surrogate Values for Activated Coal Inputs Goes Before CAFC
February 4, 2025 by Kathryn Nucci|Top News

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judges didn’t ask much as, on Feb. 3, Chinese exporters led by Carbon Activated Tianjin faced off against petitioners and the United States regarding the results of two administrative antidumping duty reviews on its activate carbon products. The exporters argued, among other things, that the Commerce Department used too narrow a category of product when selecting a surrogate value for the prices of an input (Carbon Activated v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135, 23-2413).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity, Country of origin cases, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Antidumping Surrogate Values