Aircraft Parts Exceptions to the 10% Section 122 Duty under Tariff Code 9903.03.01

June 4, 2026 by Leave a comment

Even though the Court of International Trade has ruled that the 10% section 122 tariff on most imports is illegal, it is still being collected while the matter is on appeal. It is therefore especially important to know when your imported parts are excepted from this duty (and most civil aircraft parts are now excepted).

The 10% duty that is charged under the section 122 tariff is described at HTSUS 9903.03.01.

Some imported aircraft parts from some may enjoy specific exceptions from the tariff collection, but you (or your customs broker) need to declare the exception tariff on your entry documents. In order to take advantage of the tariff exception from the 10% section 122 tariff, the imported part must meet one of these conditions:

  1. The part’s base HTSUS classification (its tariff code) must be listed on a list of codes that applies to the particular source country (and these lists vary by country, so you need to verify the applicability each time) [the references are found in the table below], or
  2. The part’s base HTSUS classification (its tariff code) must be listed on the general list of codes found in HTSUS Chapter 99, Subchapter III, U.S. Note 2, subdivision (aa)(iv).

The jurisdictions that enjoy expanded section 122 tariff exceptions for aircraft parts imports include:

JurisdictionTariff Code Excepting Aircraft PartsChapter 99, Subchapter III, Provision that Identifies the Affected Parts
Brazil9903.01.82U.S. Note 2, subdivision (x)(iv)
European Union9903.02.76U.S. Note 2, subdivision (v)(xxii)
Japan9903.96.02U.S. Note 35, subdivision (b)
Lichtenstein9903.02.90U.S. Note 2, subdivision (v)(xxv)(c)
South Korea9903.02.81U.S. Note 2, subdivision (v)(xxiv)(b)
Switzerland9903.02.85U.S. Note 2, subdivision (v)(xxv)(c)
Taiwan9903.96.03U.S. Note 35, subdivision (c)
United Kingdom9903.96.01U.S. Note 35, subdivision (a)
Any Country9903.03.05U.S. Note 2, subdivision (aa)(iv)

Some jurisdictions have fairly short lists – for example Taiwan has a shorter list that does not include the “standard” 8807 heading for many aircraft parts. Imports from Taiwan that do not benefit under the Taiwan provisions may benefit from the “any country” provisions found in HTSUS 9903.03.05.

It is important to note that the analysis for identifying an aircraft parts exception to the 10% section 122 duty is different from the analysis for exception from base duties under the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft. For most parts one may get the same answer for both, but for other parts the answers may differ!

Example: If you have a brazed aluminum plate fin heat exchanger then the tariff code is 8419.50.10; this is classified with a “C” in the HTSUS so it is excepted from the 4.2% base tariff. This tariff code is also found in the list associated with 9903.03.05, so the unit is excepted from 10% section 122 tariff found in chapter 99. This unit enters duty-free, with an exception from both the base duty and also the 10% section 122 duty described under HTSUS 9903.03.01.

This is just one of the many import regulations that we will be learning to navigate at the ASA/AFRA Annual Conference, on June 14-16, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Check out the conference agenda for full details on this and many other workshops available at the conference!

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

Potential New Tariff Regime Affecting Goods of Chinese Origin: We Need Your Import Data

March 4, 2026 by Leave a comment

If your company buys goods that are products of China, then you need to pay careful attention to the government’s latest investigation.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has opened a new factfinding investigation.  The investigation is examining the impact of revoking normal trade relations treatment for China. This would dramatically increase the tariffs paid by U.S. importers who are importing Chinese-origin goods. For the ASA Community, this could affect aircraft parts but it could also affect raw materials imported and used to produce aircraft parts in the United States.

Removing Normal Trade Relations (NTR)

“Normal trade relations” is the term of art that describes the trade relationship between the United States and its trading partners. This is also called “most-favored nation” status in the World Trade Organization (WTO) context.

There are currently four countries that do not have normal trade relations with the United States: Belarus, Cuba, North Korea and Russia.  Those four countries pay much higher base tariffs.  Currently, the United States imports relatively little from these four jurisdictions.   For example, in 2025 the U.S. imported $3.8 billion in goods from Russia, and in 2024 the U.S. imported $3.0 billion in goods from Russia.

Compare this to imports from China: In 2024 the United States imported $438.7 billion in goods from China.  That volume slipped to just $308.4 billion in 2025 due to US-China trade disputes, but that is still a very large volume of imports.  The slippage from 2024 to 2025 shows that duty rates can have significant impact on import volumes.

The People’s Republic of China was granted normal trade relations status in February 1980, pursuant to title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.).  In 2001, Public Law 106–286 (114 Stat. 880) was passed to make permanent the People’s Republic of China’s normal trade relations status.

The normal trade relations status made merchandise from the People’s Republic of China eligible for the duties set forth in column 1 of the HTSUS.  Column 2 is the column reserved for the four countries that do not enjoy normal trade relations with the United States.  For each tariff code, the column 2 duties are typically much higher.

The Effect of Removing NTR

If the United States revokes normal trade relations from China, then imports originating from China would be subject to the “column 2” duties.  China would become the fifth country added to the column list.

Column two of the HTSUS has higher duty rates, but what does that really mean?  Aircraft parts under HTSUS heading 8807 typically enjoy a zero percent base rate, but under column two they would be subject to a 27.5% duty rate.  Steel cotter pins are typically subject to a 3.8% duty rate but under column two they are subject to a 45% duty rate.  Aircraft jet engine parts are often admitted under a zero percent base rate, but under column two they would be subject to a 35% duty rate.  As you can see, moving China to column two dramatically increases the import duties that U.S. importers will pay.

Why Is This Happening?

In September, the House Appropriations Committee published a report that asked the USITC to investigate removing normal trade relations status from China.

Trade Enforcement Analysis.–The Committee directs the ITC to complete, no later than 180 days after the enactment of this Act, an investigation and prospective economic analysis of revoking permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) treatment of all products of the PRC on the U.S. economy, U.S. industry, and product sourcing over a six-year period. The ITC is further directed to provide this report to the Committee within 30 days of completion. The report should include the results of the ITC’s investigation and analysis including detailed information, to the extent practicable, on U.S. trade, production, and prices in the industries that would be directly and most affected by the imposition of rates of duty in Column 2 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (19 U.S.C. 1202) on products from China. The report should also examine an alternative scenario where Congress revokes PNTR with a five-year phase-in of tariffs on a subset of national security products.

There is also a strong likelihood that this investigation is being pursued to strengthen the Administration’s bargaining position in negotiations with China. We want to provide data to the US government and protect the traditional aviation carve-outs without weakening either side’s bargaining position.

We Need Your Help

Here’s where you come in.  As an industry, we need to compile data to show what the effect of this sort of change would be on American businesses.  We know that some of our members are sourcing Chinese origin materials as raw materials or subcomponents to their aircraft parts.  It is important that we let the government know how this will affect our industry, so they can make an informed decision.

History also shows us that when the United States imposes sanctions that affect another country, like China, the other country may impose sanctions on goods from the United States.  This means that a trade war can adversely affect aircraft parts both on the supply side and on the international sales side.

Please let ASA know:

  • What volume of Chinese origin supply/materials are you sourcing?
  • What is the annual dollar value of Chinese origin supply/materials that are you sourcing?
  • What sorts materials are you sourcing from China?

We will need to file our responses with the government by 5:15 p.m. Eastern Time, on Monday, April 13, 2026, so we ask that members of ASA submit their data to ASA by Wednesday, April 1, 2026 so we can assemble it into an industry report.

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 , , , , ,

Tariffs are Illegal – How Do I get My Refund?

February 20, 2026 by 1 Comment

By now, everyone has seen the headline: Many of the tariffs imposed by the Administration have been declared illegal by the Supreme Court in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump. The Court ruled that the IEEPA did not support issuing those HTSUS Chapter 99 tariffs. Since it was illegal to collect the tariffs, those that have already been collected likely need to be refunded to those who paid them. Many companies in the ASA community paid tariffs and I am sure that those who paid would like to get refunds if it is possible.

It is possible that the administration may create a streamlined mechanism for seeking/issuing tariff refunds. This article describes processes under current law and regulations. We have reached out to the government to seek advice on streamlined filing for refunds, and to offer assistance in streamlining the refund process.

The first step is to assess which tariffs you paid, and which of those were illegal. Not all tariffs were ruled to be illegal – only certain ones. For example, if you imported a bearing last July, and you paid a 9% duty for that bearing under HTSUS chapter 84 PLUS an additional 20% Chapter 99 tariff based on the fact that the bearing’s origin was from the European Union (total of 29% duty), then it is likely that the 9% duty from the base tariff was legal but the 20% duty could be covered under the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.

By and large, the illegal tariffs were issued under HTSUS Chapter 99 so if the basis of the duty that you paid was under another HTSUS chapter then it might have been a legal tariff. Also, some of the HTSUS Chapter 99 tariffs (like steel and aluminum) were issued under other justifications (not under the IEEPA) and those would remain unaffected by today’s ruling.

Once you’ve identified duties that you paid that might be covered by the Supreme Court’s ruling, the next step is to assess whether the import has been liquidated or not. The term Liquidation means the final computation or ascertainment of duties on thing sthat are entered into the United States for consumption. Liquidation usually happens between 300 and 360 days after the import entry (the government aims for an average of 314 days, but our recent assessment found that the average was 330-335 days).

If your import has not yet been liquidated, then you may be able to perform a post-summary correction. Typically this can be accomplished within 300 days of entry but also at least 15 days before liquidation. This is processed through the ACE system. If you discover an error, there is actually a legal obligation to file a correction.

If the 300-day window has passed or the entry has been liquidated, then you can no longer file a post summary correction. Instead, you may be able to file a protest. Protests typically are required to be filed within 180 days of liquidation.

Protests are filed using CBP Form 19. You can file this as a paper form (in which case it must be filed in quadruplicate, and sent to the Port Director) or you can file it online through ACE. If you file a paper copy then we usually advise that you send a fifth copy and a self-addressed stamped envelope in order to get a date-stamped copy back from CBP (as proof of receipt). The filing is considered filed when it is received (not when it is mailed) so make sure it gets to the destination on time!

When you file CBP Form 19, you need to be as specific as you can be. Make sure you provide this information:

  • Identify what is wrong
  • Explain why it is wrong
  • Provide evidence
  • Explain what the corrected entry should be

In the online/electronic form the space to provide this information is small, so don’t be afraid to write up your full argument on a separate document and attach it.

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

Classifying Fasteners

January 6, 2026 by 1 Comment

I have been seeing a number of companies having trouble with classifications.  This is the first of what will likely be an occasional series discussing classification.  This blog post will address fasteners.

Please note that the following analysis is based on the regulations and standards as they are written today.  Export and import law, is subject to change.  This is particularly true of tariffs over the past year.  So you should always verify your classification under the current regulations and standards.

Classification is necessary for both exports and imports.  Exports of civil aircraft parts are typically classified under Export Commodity Classification Numbers or ECCNs.  An exception arises when the goods are controlled under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITARs).  

Export Classification

ECCNs are typically five characters long.  Many civil aircraft parts are characterized under ECCN 9A991.  This ECCN applies to civil aircraft parts that are (1) not specified elsewhere and (2) specially designed for civil aircraft.  The first condition is important because some parts (like engines, avionics, etc.) are specified elsewhere and may have different export limits and licensing provisions based on their proper classification.  The second condition is equally important because the term “specially designed” is a legal term of art that has a specific definition under the Commerce Department regulations.  The definition specifically excludes fasteners, so fasteners typically will not be classified under ECCN 9A991.  Instead, they will typically be classified under EAR99.

Import Classification

Imported goods are typically classified under harmonized tariff codes from the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).  These codes can be ten digits long (when you include the statistical reporting number).  There are also a lot more tariff numbers than there are ECCNs, which makes navigating the tariff schedule a little more daunting.  Classifying fasteners for import can reflect a more complex analysis than what we just had to perform for fastener export classification.  

Normally, fasteners will be classified based on their material.  An article made of iron or steel is typically classified within HTSUS Chapter 73 of the tariff schedule.  This chapter is 45 pages long.  Within the chapter are four-digit headings and the heading 7318 addresses fasteners (made from iron or steel).  If the fastener is a bolt, then bolts made from iron or steel will be classified under 7318.15.20xx.  This classification would also encompass bolts that are imported with their nuts or washers (the nuts and washers do not have to be declared separately).  The final two characters (the “xx” in the example above) are the statistical reporting number and this number will depend on the size and nature of the bolt.  If the bolt had a shank or threads less than 6mm, then the statistical reporting number would be “10” (so the full tariff code would be 7318.15.2010.  If the shank or thread is 6mm or more then the nature of the bolt will drive the statistical reporting number: for example,  a structural bolt is classified under 7318.15.2030.  

But if the same bolt was made from a different material then the importing tariff number could be different. An aluminum bolt would be found on the schedule for aluminum articles (HTSUS Chapter 76).  It would be identified as 7616.10.xxxx.  A threaded bolt with a shank or threads less than 6mm would be identified as 7616.10.7030.   A threaded bolt with a shank or thread diameter of 6mm or more would be classified as 7616.10.9030.

Proper tariff classification is important because different tariffs have different duty amounts.  For example, the 7616.10.7030 bolt would be subject to a 5.5% duty rate when imported into the United States.  The larger diameter 7616.10.9030 bolt would be subject to a 6% duty rate when imported into the United States.  

A common mistake is to classify these sorts of fasteners as aircraft parts under heading 8807, which is a general classification for aircraft parts that do not have a more specific code that describes them.  Heading 8807 doesn’t apply to our fasteners because there are more specific classifications for bolts.  This misclassification violates the import tariff rule that requires assignment of the most specific tariff description.  It also leads to underpaid duties, which can lead to penalties when the underpayment is detected.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

Late Friday Changes to the Tariff Rules – Still No Love for EU Aircraft Parts

August 29, 2025 by Leave a comment

To round out our week, this afternoon the government has issued new tariff rules. Spoiler alert – it extends certain exemptions for products of China, but it does nothing useful for aircraft parts.

Welcome to the world, revision 21 of the 2025 HTSUS!

I’ve been watching the HTSUS carefully because I am expecting to see a change excluding EU aircraft parts from the ‘product-of-the-EU’ tariffs in Chapter 99. That change has not yet been issued. The change was foreshadowed in a White House Statement that was issued a week ago (see our blog post from 8/22). But the 15% duty rate is still (currently) applied to aircraft parts that are products of the EU.

So what did we see in revision 21? Minor changes to the way that we process products of China. The China exceptions for certain goods (covered under HTSUS 9903.88.69 and 9903.88.70, and their cross-referenced subchapter III notes) are extended through November 29, 2025. These are a variety of specific goods that have been excluded from tariffs by order of the U.S. Trade Representative. The list includes certain LCD modules and main board assemblies. Most aircraft parts fall outside of this list of exempted products from China.

Keep your eyes out for 2025 HTSUS revision 22 – if that is issued next week then it might change the treatment of civil aircraft parts that are the product of the European Union.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,

Tariffs DELAYED on Canadian and Mexican Goods

March 7, 2025 by Leave a comment

The President has issued two new executive orders providing some relief from tariffs on products of Canada and Mexico.

The essence of the two executive orders is that Canadian and/or Mexican goods that are subject to general note 11 to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) may be entered under the duty-free provisions of that note. The note implements the trade agreement between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. This represents an alternative path to the one traditionally taken by aircraft parts importers, who often rely on the traditional zero-duty provisions that apply to many aircraft parts.

The good news is that many aircraft parts from these two jurisdictions are likely to be covered under this general note 11, so they can continue to enter duty-free until the expiration of this executive order. There is no stated expiration in either executive order; however the President has announced in social media that this forbearance shall only last until April 2, 2025.

The bad news is that there may be different documentation and analysis required to properly claim the duty-free treatment, so it may require importers to perform some additional due diligence and paperwork to support the claim of duty-free treatment.

In each case, the tariffs apply to products of Canada and Mexico, so aircraft parts that are products of these countries will be affected; and the dutiable value of maintenance that is performed in these two countries may also be affected.

As always, the implementation in the Federal Register could vary from the language of the executive order, so pay careful attention to the actual Federal Register publication implementing these executive orders.

Resources

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , , ,

BIS Recommends New Export Screening Steps

July 10, 2024 by Leave a comment

Today, the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) has published new guidance reminding the export community about the dangers of divergence of goods to Russia.  This new BIS guidance outlines additional recommendations for screening transactions.

High Priority List (Including Aircraft Parts)

BIS has identified a list of 50 Common High Priority List (CHPL) items.  These are items that Russia has been procuring to support its weapons programs.  For this reason, these 50 items have been identified as special focus items for scrutiny to avoid divergence of shipments to Russia.  This list includes aircraft parts (particularly those subject to HTSUS 8807.30), bearings (particularly those subject to HTSUS Heading 8482) and certain instruments and appliances subject to HTSUS Heading 9014. Exporters should be sure to look at the full list to get an idea of the full scope of this CHPL list.

The CHPL list is meant to drive a heightened scrutiny of certain transactions, to ensure that they cannot be diverted to Russia.  BIS expects that exporters will ensure compliance for every export, but has asked for extra diligence in the scrutiny applied to transaction in the 50 CHPL articles.

Additional Screening Recommendations

BIS has recommended that for CHPL items, exporters screen the transaction parties against the Trade Integrity Project (TIP) website.

The TIP website includes a list of companies that have exported certain materials into Russia.  TIP was developed by the UK-based Open-Source Centre for monitoring trade with Russia. The TIP website specifically focuses on trade in CHPL items, and displays entities that have shipped CHPL items to Russia since 2023. It is based on publicly available trade data. TIP does not reflect all exports into Russia, and it may not include some companies that have exported aircraft parts into Russia.  The TIP website is meant to support export diligence investigations, but it should not be your only resource.

We have recommended Import Genius as another good resource for identifying companies that have exported goods to Russia; but we have also warned that this is also a starting point for scrutiny; we have heard about U.S. companies who are falsely listed as the source of goods by the actual exporters, so it is important to check out the data you find. Using Import Genius is NOT part of the latest BIS screening recommendation.

If you discover that the partner in question has been selling to Russia, then this may reflect a red flag that needs to be cleared before the transaction can be completed. For example, if you are selling to a distributor who is on the TIP list, but they ask you to drop ship the goods directly to a legal end user in a place like the UK (particularly if you get a signed end-use-statement from the end user validating the compliance elements), then this might be sufficient to clear a red flag that would otherwise casts a shadow over other transactions.

BIS Warning Letters

BIS is issuing two different types of letters to warn companies about their business partners who may be violating US export laws:

  • Red Flag Letters
  • Is Informed Letters

If BIS believes that one of your partners may have violated the export laws (such as by illegally diverting goods to Russia) then BIS may send you a “red flag” letter. A “red flag” letter informs you of the BIS suspicions, and imposes on your company an additional burden to clear the red flag before continuing to do business with the partner. A company that receives a “red flag” letter should conduct additional due diligence to resolve and overcome the red flag identified by BIS before filling an order from the identified partner.

BIS may inform you that a license is required for export, reexport or transfer of items to a specified end-user because BIS has determined that there is an unacceptable risk of diversion (e.g. because of a threat of diversion to a military end user in a restricted country). This is known as an “Is Informed” letter. When you receive this sort of communication, then you are typically required to comply with the restriction (if the communication is oral then it will usually be followed by a written communication within two days). In most cases, this means that you will need a license for the transaction, and it may cancel prior licenses. From an enforcement perspective, non-compliance with an “is informed letter” is treated the same as non-compliance with any other license requirement under the regulations and may be subject to penalties.

If you receive a “red flag” letter or an “is informed” letter than you should coordinate your actions with an export attorney.

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

Imported Face Masks Change their Tariff Code

November 24, 2020 by Leave a comment

It seems like ages ago when I offered advice about how to import N95 masks in this blog. The advice was prepared in response to members’ requests because they were importing masks in the early stages of Covid-19.

That column relied on government interpretations to announce a tariff code for importing masks, and it provided guidance on the application of China-specific import tariffs, as well. All of the codes came from the HTSUS, or the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

The blog article directed members to tariff code 6307.90.9889. At the time it was published it was the right tariff code. Just seven short months later (or perhaps not so short) that tariff code is not only wrong – it no longer exists.

Unbelievably, we are on revision twenty-seven of the 2020 HTSUS. Our prior code for masks, 6307.90.9889 appears to have been terminated as of July 1, 2020.

So what is the new code? Tariff code 6307.90.98xx from the HTSUS applies to “Other made up articles, … face masks”  This was the correct eight-character code for N95 masks when the earlier article was published and remains the correct eight-digit code.  The issue we face is in identifying the correct ninth and tenth digits in the tariff code (for statistical reporting purposes).  

Change twenty seven to the 2020 HTSUS now quotes four tariff codes under the general rubric of face masks:

  • 6307.90.9845 – N95 respirators 
  • 6307.90.9850 – Other respirators 
  • 6307.90.9870 – Other face masks: Disposable
  • 6307.90.9875 – Other face masks:Other

Note that the statistical reporting numbers (the last two digits) are different for each of these line items.

This illustrates an important feature of legal compliance: the rules change. And it is incumbent on us to make sure we continue to comply with the new rules, even after they have changed.

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , ,

Importing Face Masks or Respirators? Here are Your Tariff Codes!

April 13, 2020 by 1 Comment

An ASA Member is importing face masks and KN95 respirators asked about the proper tariff code for importing them.

Facemasks

There was a 1996 Customs Ruling that categorized surgical masks, but it unfortunately used a tariff code that is no longer part of the harmonized tariff system.  The relevant portion of the ruling states:

“The applicable subheading for the face masks, blue cone mask and shoe cover will be 6307.90.9989, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for other made up articles…Other.”

Don’t bother looking up 6307.90.9989.  It is an outdated code.  But the reference to “other made up articles…Other” gives us a textual reference that we can use to identify the modern corollary tariff code for face masks.

This permitted me to find a very recent Customs Ruling from just two weeks ago.  The ruling applied to FM-002 “civil protective disposable face masks” for non-medical use. These were loose-fitting disposable face mask made of non-woven polypropylene fabric.  They are designed to create a physical barrier between the mouth and nose of the wearer and potential contaminants in the immediate environment.  Customs explained that:

“The applicable subheading for the face mask will be 6307.90.9889, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for ‘Other made up articles, including dress patterns: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other.'”

Normally, article like this that are coming from China would be subject to an additional section 301 duty.  There are exceptions that were published in the March 17, 2020 Federal Register.  Face masks under this tariff heading appear to reflect exclusion #9 in the list of exclusions, so they would be exempt from the additional section 301 duties.

So if we have any members importing face masks reflecting the sort of masks described here, then it appears your tariff code is 6307.90.9889, and your articles from China may fall under a temporary exception from the additional tariffs on goods from China.

 

Respirators

The ASA Member also reported plans to import KN95 respirators.  KN95 is the Chinese corollary to the US N95 standard.

There are several Customs Rulings issued to identify the tariff for N95 respirators.  They agree that N95 respirators are subject to the same tariff code as face masks: 6307.90.9889.

 

Don’t Forget the FDA

Face masks and respirators intended to be used for medical uses typically are regulated by the FDA.  They may be subject to pre-market notification.  Those intended for home use with no specific claims of efficacy may be outside fo the FDA’s jurisdiction.  Note that a claim that the masks will prevent Covid-19 would be a medical claim of the sort subject to  FDA jurisdiction!

The FDA has issued emergency guidance permitting the use of N95 respirators for non-medical purposes (like construction).  They have also issued an Emergency Use Authorization permitting the import and use of certain ChInese KN95 respirators.  It is important to read this guidance carefully, as the importer may still be required to demonstrate that the disposable non-NIOSH-approved respirator(s) manufactured in China meet at least one of the FDA’s temporary criteria – this is temporarily done on an expedited basis by sending a request to the FDA via email.  There is a list of Chinese-made respirators that have already been approved by the FDA.

 

Please use this article only as a starting point for your research – make sure you comply with all of the relevant laws and regulations when importing these articles!

Filed under Uncategorized Tagged with , , , ,