Importing Compressed Gas in Cylinders

May 14, 2026 by Leave a comment

Imported compressed gas should be declared as a separate line item from the cylinder in which it is contained.

If you are importing a compressed gas (like an oxygen bottle) in a reusable cylinder and need to identify it for import purposes (e.g. on a CBP Form 7501), then you typically will need to declare the gas and the cylinder as two separate line items on the entry declaration.

One reason for this is found in the the HTSUS General Rules of Interpretation, which explains:

5. In addition to the foregoing provisions, the following rules shall apply in respect of the goods referred to therein:
(a) Camera cases, musical instrument cases, gun cases, drawing instrument cases, necklace cases and similar containers,specially shaped or fitted to contain a specific article or set of articles, suitable for long-term use and entered with the articles for which they are intended, shall be classified with such articles when of a kind normally sold therewith. This rule does not,however, apply to containers which give the whole its essential character;
(b) Subject to the provisions of rule 5(a) above, packing materials and packing containers entered with the goods therein shall be classified with the goods if they are of a kind normally used for packing such goods. However, this provision is not binding when such packing materials or packing containers are clearly suitable for repetitive use.

Normally, packaging would be merged into the entry for the material contained in the packaging, but for packaging susceptible to multiple uses (“clearly suitable for repetitive use”), that sort of packaging needs to be declared as a separate line item on the import entry.

This issue was addressed in a 2002 Customs Ruling, which involved a reusable steel gas cylinder containing carbon dioxide. The ruling explained that the carbon dioxide must be declared on import (in that case it was identified as HTSUS 2811.21.000) and the reusable steel gas cylinder also needed to be declared as part of the entry (in that case it was identified as HTSUS 7311.00.0090). There is a later ruling that supports this conclusion in a slightly different context: a 2016 Customs Ruling explains that the canisters in which a fire extinguishing agent was contained were to be declared separately from the contained chemical agent.

Today, steel cylinders for compressed gasses will be identified as 7311.00.00xx, where the last two digits depend on the configuration:

  • 7311.00.0030: a steel cylinder certified under the US DOT hazmat rules (Title 49 Part 178) and marked with DOT 3A, 3AX, 3AA, 3AAX, 3B, 3E, 3HT, 3T or DOT-E (including the specific exemption number);
  • 7311.00.0060: a steel cylinder certified under the US DOT hazmat rules (Title 49 Part 178) and but NOT marked according to the standards, above (for example, this could include a DOT 4D cylinder, as found in certain aircraft oxygen bottles);
  • 7311.00.0090: a steel cylinder that is NOT certified under the US DOT hazmat rules.

Aluminum cylinders for compressed gasses will be identified as HTSUS 7613.00.0000.

Some typical gasses (and their HTSUS tariff codes) that might be imported in aviation include:

  • 2804.30.0000: Nitrogen
  • 2804.40.0000: Oxygen
  • 2811.21.0000: Carbon Dioxide

It is important to identify your import with the right tariff code so that it will be subject to the right duties. The tariffs listed above all typically have a non-zero duty attached to them, and the cylinder and the gas may each have different duty rates associated with them.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Next Round of Tariffs May Exclude Aviation

February 23, 2026 by 1 Comment

Mere hours passed between the Supreme Court ruling that the IEEPA Chapter 99 tariffs were illegal, and the President issuing executive orders establishing the next set of tariff paradigms.

The White House issued an executive order calling for the establishment of new tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2132). The order demands that the government establish new tariffs setting a 10% duty rate on all foreign goods imported into the United States, starting tomorrow (February 24, 2026). The HTSUS code associated with this new tariff is expected to be 9903.03.01.

There is good news for industry: many aviation parts will be exempt from this new tariff. The exemption will apply to a list of HTSUS tariff codes that are typically associated with aircraft, engines, and their parts. The list is nearly 600 codes long, so it encompasses a significant number of aircraft parts classifications. Always check your HTSUS codes against this list for each import, to assess whether the additional duty applies to your import. The tariff provision that exempts aircraft parts from the new section 122 duty rate is expected to be 9903.03.05.

Section 122 permits the President to use tariffs to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits. The United States has the world’s largest negative balance of payments; however, this provision only permits tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days. After that the tariffs can only be extended by an act of Congress.

Please note: this blog article is based on the Administration’s executive order. Tariff rules can be (and have been) changed between the executive order that announces them and the formal publication in the Federal Register. So please don’t make any legal moves until you have reviewed the final published language.

UPDATE: the 10% tariff has been established as predicted, and when into effect this morning (Feb 24, 2026).

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

White House Announces Tariff Rates on EU Aircraft Parts

August 22, 2025 by Leave a comment

Last night the White House issued a statement explaining the current status of the framework trade agreement between the European Union and the United States.

The framework trade agreement anticipates that aircraft and aircraft parts that are products of the EU will enjoy the “most-favored nation” (“MFN”) rates of duty. MFN status means that the country enjoys the “column one” duty rates (it does not mean that they get better rates, even if another country has a preferable rate under a separate agreement). This appears to imply that the additional chapter 99 tariffs will no longer apply to aircraft parts that are products of the EU, and we would go back to the pre-2025 tariff treatment for civil aircraft products of the EU.

There is a strong likelihood that aircraft parts that were not subject to duty-free treatment before 2025 (like certain fasteners used in aircraft) could remain subject to the additional chapter 99 tariffs (which are scheduled to remain at 15% for most products of the EU).

The statement explaining the framework trade agreement suggests that the new rates (including the new rate on aircraft parts) will go into effect on September 1.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , ,

Destroyed Aircraft – FAA Guidance Comment Period Closes Soon

July 26, 2023 by Leave a comment

As we discussed at the ASA Quality meeting and in our prior article, the FAA has released a new draft Advisory Circular for public comment. The draft provides guidance on what constitutes a “destroyed aircraft” but some of the details in the draft have the potential to wreak unwanted consequences. This draft may impact anyone who (1) buys or sells used aircraft parts or (2) owns an aircraft.

ASA plans to issue comments on this draft, and we continue to seek input from our members. A review of our position (and our concerns about this draft) can be found in the prior article.

In summary, we are concerned that imprecise language in the draft Advisory Circular could open the door to FAA employees making determinations that are contrary to their statutory authority. The result of such determinations could effectively deregister an aircraft that was intended to remain on the registry, as well as shifting the registry analysis so that it relies on elements that are not part of the statutory tests for registration. This topic was discussed at the ASA Conference earlier this month. ASA is asking members review the draft and to let us know your concerns, so we can make sure that the ASA comments reflect all of our members’ concerns.

The comment period ends August 16, 2023, so please look at this draft and get your comments into ASA, ASAP.

Resources:

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

Destroyed Aircraft – New FAA Guidance, Open for Comment

June 20, 2023 by Leave a comment

The FAA has released a new draft Advisory Circular for public comment. The draft addresses destroyed aircraft and it has the potential to impact anyone who (1) buys or sells used aircraft parts or (2) owns an aircraft. ASA plans to issue comments on this draft, and is asking the ASA community for their opinions on the draft guidance.

There is existing guidance in the form of an FAA Order that addresses this topic. The Order explains that “The regulations do not set forth specific criteria that can be used to determine whether an aircraft is
repairable or whether it is destroyed or scrapped.” Had this Order been published for public comment, ASA would have reminded the FAA that the airworthiness standards published in the regulations do establish standards that may be used as metrics for repairability. An aircraft that cannot comply with the FAA’s published airworthiness standards is not airworthy (unless the FAA has issued a special condition, exemption, or other variance from the regulations).

The Order explains that the regulations do “not specify who makes the determination that an aircraft is destroyed or scrapped.” Nonetheless, the Order seems to delegate such a responsibility to the FAA, and the draft Advisory Circular also seems to assign to the FAA the power to declare an aircraft as destroyed, and to force a deregistration on this basis. This is a dangerous power, and it is one that is not assigned to the FAA under either the statute nor the regulations.

The FAA has the power to make a determination concerning airworthiness. The FAA has the power to revoke a certificate of airworthiness when the aircraft is not airworthy. This revocation is subject to due process, and there is a formal mechanism for defending against a certificate revocation when the owner disagrees with the FAA’s decision. This is different from the destroyed-aircraft process which does not offer any due process under the FAA’s regulations.

The registration statute requires the FAA to register an aircraft when it is eligible. In summary, the owner must be a U.S. person and the thing that is getting registered must be an aircraft. The regulations provide a summary of what is not an aircraft, and they explain that when the aircraft is destroyed it is no longer an aircraft, so it is no longer eligible to be registered.

The draft Advisory Circular provides parameters under which the FAA can determine that an aircraft is not repairable, and on this basis declare it destroyed. This power to declare an aircraft destroyed assumes a power to the FAA that the FAA does not have under either statutes nor under regulations. Because the power does not exist, there is no due process established in the regulations for refuting a declaration of destruction.

The draft Advisory Circular suggests that FAA employees use their “knowledge, expertise, and judgment” and admits that the result may be subjective – this is not a matter left to the FAA’s discretion under the statutes nor under the FAA’s regulations so it appears to be an invitation for FAA employees to act in an arbitrary and capricious manner. The draft Advisory Circular provides some guidance but largely leaves the standard as the FAA employee’s subjective determination about repairability. So if the wing of a 787 is damaged and an FAA employee believes that the wing cannot be repaired the FAA employee could declare the 787 to be “destroyed.”

Also, the draft Advisory Circular shifts the burden of proof from the FAA to the aircraft owner. Upon a determination by any FAA employee that the aircraft is unrepairable and is therefore destroyed (remember, that an FAA employee can make this determination based on his or her subjective judgment), it is incumbent on the aircraft owner to sue the FAA to force the FAA to re-establish the registration, and it imposes on the owner the obligation to prove that the aircraft is repairable (rather than the normal airworthiness burden in which the FAA bears the burden of proof to justify a certificate action).

In whole, this draft Advisory Circular appears to open the door to FAA arbitrary determinations that an aircraft is unrepairable, having the de facto consequence of eliminating much of the value of the aircraft when it is consequently deregistered, and it imposes a heavy burden on the aircraft owner that will be difficult to meet at trial without a speculative investment in engineering analysis and repair justification that might be rendered valueless if the owner cannot prove to the court that the aircraft is repairable.

This topic was discussed at the ASA Conference earlier this month. ASA is asking members review the draft and to let us know your concerns, so we can make sure that the ASA comments reflect all of our members’ concerns.

The comment period was originally set for just 30 days but the FAA granted our request for an extension. Comments are now due to the FAA by August 16, 2023.

Resources:

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

US Will Impose 10% Import Duty on European Planes and 25% Import Duty on Certain European Tooling

October 4, 2019 by Leave a comment

Earlier this year, the United States won a ruling in a trade case before the World Trade Organization.  The case was related to alleged subsidies of Airbus by the European Community.  The WTO ruling authorized the United States to impose duties on European imports; and a follow-on ruling dated October 2, 2019 authorized specific duty amounts.

The United States has published a list of products that will be subject to the additional duties. The list is subject to approval by the WTO but that approval is a mere formality.  Approval is expected within two weeks.

A copy of the US tariffs list (the “Final Products List”) associated with these punitive tariffs is currently available for information purposes only; however the final list will be published in the Federal Register.  This means that the currently-available list, although reasonably reliable, could possibly be changed.

The U.S. list proposes to impose a 10% duty on aircraft imported from France, Germany, Spain, or the United Kingdom.  This is limited to aircraft imported under headings

  • 8802.40.00.40 – Airplanes and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg, non-military, passenger transport
  • 8802.40.00.60 – Airplanes and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg, non-military, cargo transport
  • 8802.40.00.70 – Airplanes and other aircraft, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg, non-military, other (including passenger/cargo combinations)

At present, this list does not appear to include aircraft parts; however this could cause serious burden on US airlines and leasing companies that have already committed to accepting Airbus aircraft or other European aircraft.  If this inhibits the economic ability of companies to accept Airbus aircraft in the United States, then it is possible that the expected replacement of certain aircraft in the United States could be delayed.

The US also expects to impose a 25% duty on other named goods.  The press has made much of the high-profile categories, like wines and cheeses, but other categories are far more likely to impact the aviation community.  This includes:

  • German tooling and machinery under 8467.19.10.XX, 8467.19.50.XX, 8568.80.10.XX, 8568.90.10.XX
  • UK or German tooling and machinery under 8429.52.10.XX, 8429.52.50.XX, 8467.29.00.XX
  • German tools, as follows:
    • 8201.40.60-Axes, bill hooks and similar hewing tools (o/than machetes), and base metal parts thereof
    • 8203.20.20-Base metal tweezers
    • 8203.20.60-Pliers (including cutting pliers but not slip joint pliers), pincers and similar tools
    • 8203.30.00-Metal cutting shears and similar tools, and base metal parts thereof
    • 8203.40.60-Pipe cutters, bolt cutters, perforating punches and similar tools, (except for those with cutting part containing by weight over 0.2 percent of chromium, molybdenum, or tungsten or over 0.1 percent of vanadium), and base metal parts thereof
    • 8205.40.00-Screwdrivers and base metal parts thereof
    • 8211.93.00-Knives having other than fixed blades
    • 8211.94.50-Base metal blades for knives having other than fixed blades
    • 8467.19.10-Tools for working in the hand, pneumatic, other than rotary type, suitable for metal working
    • 8467.19.50-Tools for working in the hand, pneumatic, other than rotary type, other than suitable for metal working
    • 8468.80.10-Machinery and apparatus, hand-directed or -controlled, used for soldering, brazing or welding, not gas-operated
    • 8468.90.10-Parts of hand-directed or -controlled machinery, apparatus and appliances used for soldering, brazing, welding or tempering

These tariffs are expected to be applied as of October 18.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Battery Shipments Could Get Tougher

July 21, 2015 by 1 Comment

Last week, Boeing issued a warning about transporting lithium batteries on aircraft.  The news media is reporting that:

The guidance sent to airlines around the globe urged that they not carry the batteries as cargo “until safer methods of packaging and transport are established and implemented,” Boeing spokesman Doug Alder told The Associated Press in an email.

IATA has published its own guidance on the subject.  In addition to republishing ICAO’s dangerous goods shipping requirements, IATA has also published its own lithium battery risk mitigation guide for air carriers.

The Portable Rechargeable Battery Association (PRBA) issued a press release on July 20th in response to the Boeing missive that stated:

PRBA–The Rechargeable Battery Association shares Boeing’s goal of improving the safe transport of bulk shipments of lithium ion batteries by air. We look forward to continuing our engagement with Boeing and other aircraft manufacturers, the airline industry and regulators at the ICAO battery meeting in late July to discuss battery transportation issues, specifically a new and unprecedented lithium ion battery standard and packaging criteria.

Ongoing international regulatory initiatives, along with the development of innovative fire suppression technologies and more robust international enforcement efforts are reducing risk and advancing battery safety. Together, these ambitious efforts to improve transportation safety mitigate the need to prohibit air shipments of lithium ion batteries used daily in thousands of consumer, aerospace, medical, military, transportation and environmental applications.

Safety remains PRBA’s No. 1 priority and our members are proud of their outstanding safety record. We also have supported ICAO’s recent regulatory initiatives on lithium batteries, including new stringent packaging and labelling requirements. Billions of lithium ion batteries have been shipped safely by all modes of transportation over the last 25 years. PRBA is not aware of a single incident involving the transport by air of a fully compliant shipment of lithium ion batteries.

PRBA also remains concerned that certification of aircraft fail to consider the unique hazards associated with the carriage of any dangerous goods, not just those associated with lithium batteries.

The FAA continues to press for compliance in this arena, and has announced multiple civil penalty actions related to improper shipment of lithium batteries in the past year.

Distributors shipping lithium batteries should make sure that the batteries are treated as dangerous goods and properly prepared for shipment, but distributors should also be aware that some carriers could refuse to carry lithium batteries in the wake of the Boeing all-operators letter.  It appears that some carriers have already banned the bulk shipment of batteries:

Several airlines have already banned bulk battery shipments from the bellyhold, including Cathay Pacific, United, IAG Cargo and Qantas.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,