USFIA Calls for Elimination of Obsolete 'Subject to Restraints' HTS Provisions
The International Trade Commission should remove outdated HTS provisions for textiles and apparel that became obsolete with the expiration of the U.S. absolute quota regime, said the U.S. Fashion Industry Association in a letter dated March 31 (here). Statistical breakouts in chapters 50, 53, 61 and 62 that cover textiles and apparel “subject to” cotton, man-made fiber or wool restraints no longer serve any purpose, and dealing with them is a “confusing and now totally unnecessary requirement,” said USFIA.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The “subject to restraints” suffixes refer to absolute quotas formerly in place for textile and apparel products. They were used “to assign a quota category to textiles and apparel whose fiber in chief weight was not subject to restraint but which included cotton, wool and/or man-made fibers that in the aggregate represented half or more of total fiber weight,” said the trade association. However, U.S. absolute quota regime was eliminated as part of the Uruguay Round of World Trade Organization negotiations, with the last expiring in 2008, it said.
The end of the absolute quota regime also left other relics in the HTS that no longer serve any purpose, said the USFIA. For example, the ITC should eliminate provisions for knit-to-shape articles described in statistical note 6 to chapter 61, found in subheadings 6110.20, 6110.30, and 6110.90, it said.
Elimination of the outdated HTS provisions “will not result in the loss of relevant statistical data,” said the trade association. “USFIA recognizes the ‘subject to’ definitions finds very limited use in connection with certain trade preference programs,” it said. That use may justify retaining the definitions. It does not justify retaining the many statistical provisions, which as far as USFIA can determine, have little or no utility,” said the trade group.