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 Says Its Products Are the Basis for Section 301 Exclusion That CBP Denied It
August 26, 2024 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

An importer filed Aug. 21 its long-delayed motion for judgment in its test case alleging its Chinese-origin selective catalytic reduction catalysts had wrongly been assessed Section 301 duties. The catalysts were misclassified by CBP as centrifuges instead of “reaction initiators, reaction accelerators and catalytic preparations, not elsewhere specified or included,” it said (Mitsubishi Power Americas v. U.S., CIT #21-00573).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, Statutory Interpretation
No Cause of Action for Counterclaim to Reclassify Entry and Increase Duty, Importer Argues
August 23, 2024 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

In defense of its own motion for judgment (see 2405020062) and opposing the government’s counterclaim, an importer again argued that the U.S. can’t counterclaim to reclassify an entry to increase the amount of duty owed on it higher than the rate initially assessed by CBP. Such a counterclaim lacks a cause of action, it said (BASF Corp. v. U.S., CIT Consol. # 13-00318).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, CBP CROSS Rulings
US Says Swiss Watch Maker Hasn't Even Proven Its Watches Were Actually Imported
August 16, 2024 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

A Swiss watchmaker embroiled in a customs dispute with the U.S. since 2018 "failed to provide” evidence that the watches its commercial invoices identified were actually the ones it imported, the government said Aug. 13 in support of its cross-motion for judgment (Ildico v. United States, CIT # 18-00136).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings