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").

CIT Says 10-Digit HTS Subheading Starts With Adjacent Text for Drawback Purposes
January 30, 2024 |Bulletin

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 30 rejected importer Spirit Aerosystems' claim that the "preceding indented text" to any 10-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading should be read as part of the article description for purposes of claiming a substituted unused merchandise drawback. Spirit's had argued its 10-digit subheading begin with the superior text "For use in civil aircraft" as opposed to "other," avoiding a prohibition on unused merchandise drawback for HTS subheadings that begin with the word "other." But Judge Claire Kelly said the "plain meaning" of the drawback statute refers to the words adjacent to the 10-digit number and not the superior indented text, and that Congress meant to exclude article descriptions with the word "other" to eliminate the need for CBP to find on a case-by-case basis whether goods are sufficiently similar to be eligible for drawback.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
CIT Should Not Reopen Discovery in Watchmaker Classification Case, Exporter Argues
January 26, 2024 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

DOJ’s motion to bar a wristwatch exporter from using a late discovery production in any subsequent proceedings, or alternatively to reopen discovery, is just an “illusory claim” because no new information has actually surfaced, the exporter argued Jan. 24 at the Court of International Trade (Ildico Inc. v. U.S., CIT # 18-00136).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
US, AD Petitioners Defend Surrogate Value Picks for Carbonized Material in AD Review at CAFC
January 25, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The U.S. defended its use of Malaysian Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4402.90.1000 to value antidumping duty respondents' carbonized material over basket category 4402.90, telling the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit it permissibly selected the more specific heading as part of an AD review on activated carbon from China (Carbon Activated Tianjin Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 23-2135).

Topics:Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Differential Pricing Analysis, Antidumping Surrogate Values
CIT Vacates Ruling in Customs Case on Auto Parts for Clerical Error
January 25, 2024 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The Court of International Trade on Jan. 16 vacated its judgment in a customs case brought by Jing Mei Automotive (USA) under the court's Rule 60(a), which allows the court to correct clerical mistakes or mistakes stemming from oversight or omission. The judgment denied Jing Mei's motion for summary judgment and addressed four different categories of the importer's car parts. The court's Jan. 16 order didn't identify the clerical error (Jing Mei Automotive (USA) v. United States, CIT # 13-00321).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Country of origin cases, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Differential Pricing Analysis