U.S. Code » Title 19 » Chapter CHAPTER 4— TARIFF ACT OF 1930 › Subtitle SUBTITLE I— HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE OF THE UNITED STATES

19 U.S.C. § 1202

Harmonized Tariff Schedule

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar
Publication of Harmonized Tariff Schedule

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is not published in the Code. A current version of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule is maintained and published periodically by the United States International Trade Commission and is available at their website and for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesReference to Tariff Schedules To Be Treated as Reference to Harmonized Tariff Schedule

Reference in any law to “Tariff Schedules of the United States”, “the Tariff Schedules”, “such Schedules”, and any other general reference to the old Schedules to be treated as reference to Harmonized Tariff Schedule, see section 3012 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 216 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U.S. 380 (1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Haggar Apparel Co., 526 U.S. 380 (1999). · cites it 18× “80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the *385 United States (HTSUS), 19 U. S. C. § 1202 ; Item 807.00, Tariff Schedule of the United States (TSUS), 19 U.”
United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001). · cites it 4× “fix the final classification and rate of duty applicable to .”
Kosak v. United States, 465 U.S. 848 (1984). · cites it 2× “19 U. S. C. § 1202 . [2] Section 1618 permits the Secretary of the Treasury to remit or mitigate a forfeiture "if he finds that such .”
Daimlerchrysler Corp. v. United States, 442 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “As part of the process by which the proper amount of duty is determined (called “liquidation”), Customs assigns imported merchandise a classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), 19 U.S.C. § 1202 . Under section 515 of the Tariff Act, an…”
United States v. Hemant Patel, Raoji Patel, Bridgewater Dev. Co., & Pac. Food Beverages, Inc., 762 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1985). · cites it 3× “Joseph McDonald advised the appellants that under Headnote 3(a) of 19 U.S.C. § 1202 of the United States Tariff Schedules, the coffee could enter the United States as a product of Guam if the beans were processed on Guam.”
Lynteq, Inc. v. The United States, 976 F.2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1992). · cites it 2× “1% (codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1202 (1988)) (emphasis added).”
Baker & Hostetler LLP v. United States Dep't of Com., 473 F.3d 312 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “590 (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. §§ 1202 et seq.); see 19 U.S.C.”
Argosy Ltd. v. Franklin Hennigan, Individually & as Acting Dist. Dir. of Customs, 404 F.2d 14 (5th Cir. 1968). · cites it 4× “In its complaint, Argosy alleged that the Fountainbleau II was exempt from assessment as a dutiable import under the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.A. § 1202 et seq. Argosy claimed that the yacht was neither an import within the true intent and meaning of the customs laws 1 nor an…”
Solomon Angel v. Seattle-First Nat'l Bank, & Third Party v. United States of Am., Third Party, 653 F.2d 1293 (1st Cir. 1981). · cites it 2× “See 19 U.S.C. § 1202 , schedule 7, part 11. For aught that appears in the record, Angel is an angel.”
United States v. James Cabaccang, United States of Am. v. Richard T. Cabaccang, United States of Am. v. Roy Toves Cabaccang, 332 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 2003). “The airspace of the United States currently includes that airspace overlying the waters within 12 nautical miles of the land borders of the United States.”
Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States of Am., 961 F.2d 245 (D.C. Cir. 1992). “The district court concluded that appellant was precluded from relitigating the issue that the regulations are invalid under the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. §§ 1202 -1677k (1988) (“Tariff Act”), *248 and under the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.”
North Am. Processing Co. v. United States, 236 F.3d 695 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “60 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, 19 U.S.C. § 1202 (1994) (“HTSUS”). North American Processing Co.”
Show all 216 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.