U.S. Code » Title 19 » Chapter CHAPTER 18— IMPLEMENTATION OF HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE

19 U.S.C. § 3005

Commission review of, and recommendations regarding, Harmonized Tariff Schedule

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In generalThe Commission shall keep the Harmonized Tariff Schedule under continuous review and periodically, at such time as amendments to the Convention are recommended by the Customs Cooperation Council for adoption, and as other circumstances warrant, shall recommend to the President such modifications in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as the Commission considers necessary or appropriate—(1) to conform the Harmonized Tariff Schedule with amendments made to the Convention;(2) to promote the uniform application of the Convention and particularly the Annex thereto;(3) to ensure that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule is kept up-to-date in light of changes in technology or in patterns of international trade;(4) to alleviate unnecessary administrative burdens; and(5) to make technical rectifications.(b) Agency and public views regarding recommendationsIn formulating recommendations under subsection (a), the Commission shall solicit, and give consideration to, the views of interested Federal agencies and the public. For purposes of obtaining public views, the Commission—(1) shall give notice of the proposed recommendations and afford reasonable opportunity for interested parties to present their views in writing; and(2) may provide for a public hearing.(c) Submission of recommendations

The Commission shall submit recommendations under this section to the President in the form of a report that shall include a summary of the information on which the recommendations were based, together with a statement of the probable economic effect of each recommended change on any industry in the United States. The report also shall include a copy of all written views submitted by interested Federal agencies and a copy or summary, prepared by the Commission, of the views of all other interested parties.

(d) Requirements regarding recommendationsThe Commission may not recommend any modification to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule unless the modification meets the following requirements:(1) The modification must—(A) be consistent with the Convention or any amendment thereto recommended for adoption;(B) be consistent with sound nomenclature principles; and(C) ensure substantial rate neutrality.(2) Any change to a rate of duty must be consequent to, or necessitated by, nomenclature modifications that are recommended under this section.(3) The modification must not alter existing conditions of competition for the affected United States industry, labor, or trade.(Pub. L. 100–418, title I, § 1205, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1150.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (d), is not set out in the Code. See Publication of Harmonized Tariff Schedule note set out under section 1202 of this title.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesCommission Report on Operation of Implementation of Harmonized Tariff Schedule

Pub. L. 100–418, title I, § 1216, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1163, required Commission, in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies, to prepare and submit to Congress and President a report regarding operation of subtitle B (§§ 1201–1217) of title I of Pub. L. 100–418, during the 12-month period commencing on effective date of Harmonized Tariff Schedule, Jan. 1, 1989, said report to be submitted to Congress and President before close of 6-month period beginning on day after last day of such 12-month period.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Michael Simon Design, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Michael Simon Design, Inc. v. United States, 609 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2010). · cites it 6× “19 U.S.C. § 3005 (a). In formulating its recommendations, the Commission institutes a formal investigation, solicits the views of interested federal agencies and the public, *1337 and ultimately issues a final report to the President.”
Jewelpak Corp. v. United States, 297 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “Finally, the third cause of action alleged that Customs, having at once classified the imported merchandise as packaging even after the Explanatory Note became effective, was thereafter estopped from altering the duty rate until the President, at the recommendation of the…”
Specialty Commodities Inc. v. United States, 2016 CIT 114 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2016). · cites it 2× “This commitment is codified in 19 U.S.C. § 3005 (a), 18 by which Congress recognizes its “obligation to maintain consistency with the Harmonized System.”
Michael Simon Design, Inc. v. United States, 637 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2009). · cites it 3× “19 U.S.C. § 3005 (a)(1). Upon receiving the proposed amendments from the WCO, the ITC conducts an investigation into the modifications that are necessary to conform the HTSUS with the Harmonized System, invites public comment, and ultimately issues a final report making specific…”
WWRD U.S., LLC v. United States, 2017 CIT 21 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2017). · cites it 3× “See supra note 19; 19 U.S.C. § 3005 (d)(1)(C). Substantial rate neutrality does not factor into this court’s mandate to apply the GRIs to determine the correct classification.”
Victoria's Secret Direct, LLC v. United States, 2013 CIT 55 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2013). “” 19 U.S.C. § 3005 (a)(2). Of course, Congress is free to enact a tariff heading with a different scope than that provided by the drafters of the Harmonized System.”
Cummins Inc. v. United States, 377 F. Supp. 2d 1365 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2005). “Under 19 U.S.C. § 3005 (a), Congress empowered the International Trade Commission to: [K]eep the Harmonized Tariff Schedule under continuous review and periodically, at such time as amendments to the Convention are recommended by the Customs Cooperation Council for adoption, and…”
Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. United States, 559 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2008). · cites it 2× “19 U.S.C. § 3005 (a)-(c). The ITC may take into account decisions issued by the WCO, the WCO’s Harmonized System Committee, and U.”
Jewelpak Corp. v. United States, 20 Ct. Int'l Trade 1402 (Ct. Intl. Trade 1996). “In conjunction with this responsibility, 19 U.S.C. §3005 (a) provides that the ITC: shall recommend to the President such modifications in the [HTSUS] as the [ITC] considers necessary or appropriate— (1) to conform the [HTSUS] with amendments made to the Convention; (2) to…”
Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. United States, 91 F. Supp. 3d 1304 (Ct. Intl. Trade 2015). “See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 § 1205, 19 U.S.C. § 3005 (2006). The Commission’s analysis of calcined bauxite proppants from Australia determined classification under heading 2606, HTSUS.”
V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump (Fed. Cir. 2025). “19 U.S.C. § 3005 . The framework for tariff schedules is set forth in the HTSUS.”
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.