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 Laser Levels Are Tools for 'Surveying,' Not Measuring
November 5, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

Importer Topcon Positioning Systems on Nov. 3 told the Court of International Trade that its "laser levels" are "surveying instruments," properly classified under duty-free Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9015.30.4000, which provides for "levels" used for "surveying." In a motion for summary judgment, Topcon also argued that its accessories are, "in turn," classified under duty-free subheading 9015.90.0030, which covers accessories of surveying instruments (Topcon Positioning Systems v. United States, CIT # 14-00189).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
Plastic Production Chemical Accelerator a 'Supported Catalyst,' Importer Argues Again
November 4, 2025 by Kathryn Nucci|Top News

Importer Lanxess argued again Oct. 31 that its polymerization accelerator -- a substance used to accelerate the chemical process of plastic manufacturing -- is properly classified as a “supported catalyst,” not as a chemical preparation (Lanxess Corporation v. United States, CIT # 23-00073).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, CBP CROSS Rulings
3 Flooring Exporters Won't Take Part in CVD Review Appeal Despite CIT Presence
October 31, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Exporters Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry, Jiangsu Keri Wood and Sino-Maple won't participate in the appeal on the 2017 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China despite having participated in the case at the Court of International Trade (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 26-1050).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
CBP's Classification of Steel Wires Undercut by Its Own Evidence, Importer Tells CIT
October 31, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

CBP erroneously found that importer Superon Schweisstechnik's stainless steel round wires aren't coated in a "flux material" and thus misclassified three types of the wires, Superon argued in an Oct. 30 complaint filed at the Court of International Trade. The importer faulted CBP for using the "conventional test methods" on the wires' coating, "rather than the globally recognized specialized methods necessary for identifying" the type of coating on the wires (Superon Schweisstechnik India v. United States, CIT # 21-00570).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
Importer, Exporter to Appeal CIT Case on Respondent Selection, Benchmark Data in CVD Review
October 30, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer Riverside Plywood and exporter Baroque Timber Industries (Zhongshan) will appeal a Court of International Trade case on the 2017 administrative review of the countervailing duty order on multilayered wood flooring from China, joining importer Galleher in appealing the case (see 2510090007) (Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 20-03885).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity