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").

Importer Tells CIT Organometallic Product Is Catalyst, Not Solution
August 8, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer Lanxess Corp. on Aug. 5 told the Court of International Trade that its organometallic product, made from methylaluminoxane (MAO) and trimethylaluminum in a toluene solvent, is properly classified as a "supported catalyst" and not as a solution under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 3208. The company said its customers exclusively use the product as a supported catalyst and those in the industry only refer to the product as such (Lanxess Corporation v. U.S., CIT # 23-00073).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, CBP CROSS Rulings
Cable Importer Says Government Can't Overcome Presumption of Correctness for CBP Classification
August 8, 2025 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

Cable importer Cyber Power Systems disagreed Aug. 1 that its products are general “power cables” rather than “telecommunications cables,” saying in response to a U.S. cross-motion for judgment that its preferred classification is presumptively correct. The importer also raised a separation of powers argument (Cyber Power Systems (USA) v. United States, CIT # 21-00200).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, CBP CROSS Rulings
Importer Says Hookah Tobacco Not 'Pipe Tobacco,' Not Subject to Excise Tax
August 7, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

CBP improperly classified importer Air Distribution USA's shisha molasses, also known as "hookah tobacco," as a type of "smoking tobacco" and erroneously subjected the shisha molasses to federal excise taxes on "pipe tobacco," Air Distribution argued in a complaint last month at the Court of International Trade (Air Distribution USA v. United States, CIT # 25-00063).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Harmonized Tariff Schedule
Importers Urge SCOTUS to Grant Cert to Align the 2 Major IEEPA Tariff Suits
August 6, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

Importers Learning Resources and Hand2Mind urged the Supreme Court on Aug. 5 to take up their challenge to the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act prior to their case being heard before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on the grounds that the high court may need to do so to hear the case in tandem with the lead lawsuit on the IEEPA tariffs. The importers said the Solicitor General himself suggested this course of action (Learning Resources v. Donald J. Trump, Sup. Ct. # 24-1287).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Court of Federal Appeals Trade activity