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").

Recalculating AD Rate for Sole Respondent Should Result in Separate-Rate Changes, Exporters Argue
June 9, 2023 by Ben Perkins|Litigation

If the antidumping rate on activated carbon from China is lowered on Chinese exporter Jilin Bright Future Chemicals, Commerce should recalculate and re-assign the rates assigned to separate rate respondents Cherishmet and Yunguang, the two companies argued in a June 8 motion for judgment at the Court of International Trade (Jilin Bright Future Chemicals Co. v. U.S., CIT # 22-00336).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
Importer Appeals CIT Opinion on Classification of Steel Conduit Tubing
June 8, 2023 by Ben Perkins|Litigation

The Court of International Trade improperly upheld CBP's incorrect classification of conduit tubing imported from Mexico as steel tubing instead of insulated fittings, Shamrock Building Materials said in its June 5 opening brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Shamrock Building Materials v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 23-1648)

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity, Country of origin cases
Trade Court Upholds Commerce's Surrogate Value Picks in AD Review on Chinese Aluminum Foil
June 8, 2023 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

The Court of International Trade on June 7 upheld the Commerce Department's classification of the surrogate values for aluminum ash byproduct and rolling oil inputs in the first antidumping duty administrative review on aluminum foil from China, as well as the agency's decision to use Maersk data to calculate surrogate freight costs and its refusal to grant respondent Jiangsu Zhongji Lamination Materials Co. a double remedies adjustment for input subsidies the respondent said were countervailable.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Antidumping Surrogate Values, Section 232 Exclusions
CBP Correctly Interpreted HTS Text Alignment and Denied Substitution Drawback Claim, DOJ Says
June 6, 2023 by Ben Perkins|Litigation

CBP found an article description for aircraft parts at the 10-digit level in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule begins with "other" and correctly denied a claim for unused substitution drawback, DOJ said in a June 2 cross motion for summary judgment at the Court of International Trade. The case concerns the placement of the word "other" in the superior text between the 8-digit HTS subheading and the 10-digit statistical reporting number. The court's ruling could shake up the industry and could change how CBP interprets what HTS numbers are eligible or not for this type of drawback (see 2303270031) (Spirit Aerosystems v. U.S., CIT # 20-00094).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, CBP CROSS Rulings