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 Drops 2 Cases on Section 301 Exclusions for Lack of Prosecution
September 5, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

The Court of International Trade on Sept. 3 dropped two cases on the applicability of Section 301 exclusions from its customs case management calendar for lack of prosecution. Both cases were placed on the calendar and not removed from it at the expiration of the "applicable period of time of removal." One case, brought by Warby Parker, was brought to contest CBP's denial of its protest over whether Section 301 duties apply to its frames and lenses classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 9004.90.0000 and secondary subheading 9903.88.15 (see 2303070024). The other case, filed by MTD Products, was filed to contest CBP's denial of its protest claiming its gasoline engines of HTS subheading 8407.90.1020, free of duty, and secondary subheading 9903.88.02, should be exempt from Section 301 duties under secondary subheading 9903.88.12 (see 2309130063) (Warby Parker v. U.S., CIT # 23-00042) (MTD Products v. U.S., CIT # 23-00184).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
CIT Grants Customs Broker License Applicant Credit for Final Question Needed to Pass 2022 Exam
September 5, 2025 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

Customs broker applicant Brandon Chen, who challenged a number of CBP’s 2022 licensing exam questions at the trade court seeking credit for at least one more, succeeded Sept. 4. He will receive a passing score on the test (Brandon Chen v. United States, CIT # 24-00208).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases
Exporter's Food Supplement Is a Dietary Supplement, Not General Provitamin, CIT Says
September 5, 2025 by Kathryn Nucci|Bulletin

In a decision made public Sep. 5, Court of International Trade Judge Lisa Wang determined that exporter BASF Corp.’s product, Betatene, had been properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2106 as a "dietary supplement," dismissing the exporter’s claim it should have fallen under heading 2936 as a general-use “provitamin.” She said the product isn’t suited for general use.

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases
Flooring Entries Wrongly Hit With 10% Section 301 Tariffs Subject to Exclusion, Importer Says
September 2, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

CBP unlawfully applied 10% Section 301 duties to importer Shaw Industries Group's Chinese flooring entries, since the goods were subject to an exclusion from the tariffs, Shaw argued in an Aug. 29 complaint at the Court of International Trade (Shaw Industries Group v. United States, CIT # 21-00400).

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