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").

ITC, Commerce Overlooked Seasonal Trends of Chinese Vehicle Sales in Critical Circ. Finding, Companies Say
October 16, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Exporter Kangdi Electric Vehicle (Hainan) and its affiliated importer Kandi America filed a pair of complaints at the Court of International Trade on Oct. 14 to contest the International Trade Commission's and Commerce Department's affirmative finding of critical circumstances regarding Chinese low speed personal transportation vehicles from China (Kangdi Electric Vehicle (Hainan) v. United States, CIT #'s 25-00201, -00202).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity
Importer to Appeal Customs Case on Classification of Betatene
October 15, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Litigation

Importer BASF Corporation will appeal a recent Court of International Trade decision regarding the proper tariff classification of BASF's food additive Betatene. In an August ruling, the trade court said the importer's product was properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 2106 as a dietary supplement (see 2509050057). CIT Judge Lisa Wang said that the products weren’t general-use “provitamins,” as BASF argued, because the preparation they underwent for tableting made them not suitable for general commercial use. BASF will take the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (BASF Corporation v. United States, CIt # 12-00422).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings
Domestic Producer Challenges AD Investigation on Chinese-Origin Brake Drums
October 15, 2025 by Kathryn Nucci|Litigation

In an Oct. 14 complaint, domestic brake drum producer Webb Wheel Products argued that the Commerce Department used the wrong surrogate value for a mandatory respondent’s “recarburizing agent” in its antidumping duty investigation on brake drums from China (Webb Wheel Products v. United States, CIT # 25-00207).

Topics:Court of International Trade activity, Tariff classification rulings, Country of origin cases, Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Antidumping Surrogate Values
CAFC Judges Question Differences Between 'Adapted' Foods and Medicaments
October 14, 2025 by Jacob Kopnick|Top News

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held oral argument in importer Nutricia's customs suit on the classification of various of the company's medical foods with Judges Sharon Prost, Richard Taranto and Leonard Stark probing Nutricia's claim that its products are "medicaments" and not "food preparations." During the argument, which was held on Oct. 8 in Boston as part of the court's efforts to schedule arguments outside Washington, D.C., Taranto stressed that the case largely turns on the definition of the term "dietetic" (Nutricia North America v. U.S., Fed. Cir. # 24-1436).

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