Reasonable Care Archives - Customs & International Trade Law Firm

Understanding HTSUS Classification: Why Getting It Wrong Is Expensive
Gallery
Understanding HTSUS Classification: Why Getting It Wrong Is Expensive
Import, Reasonable Care, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

Understanding HTSUS Classification: Why Getting It Wrong Is Expensive

Summary: HTSUS classification determines the duty rate, applicability of tariffs such as Section 301 and Section 232, trade program eligibility, and helps determine whether any AD/CVD duties apply to every imported product. Misclassification often goes undetected for months or years, and since importers tend to reuse the same code for every entry of the same product, a single error can compound into significant back duties, penalties, and prior disclosure obligations. This article breaks down how classification errors happen, what reasonable care looks like, and how a documented classification process can prevent a small mistake from becoming a costly one.

Every product entering the United States must be assigned a classification code under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), and that ten-digit number determines far more than most importers realize. It sets the duty rate and tariffs owed on a shipment, flags whether a product needs additional agency review, and establishes whether it qualifies for preferential trade programs. A misclassification, even an unintentional one, can trigger back duties, penalties, and a prior disclosure process that could have been avoided entirely with the right classification from the start.

What HTSUS Classification Actually Determines

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is the United States’ implementation of the international Harmonized System, a standardized numerical method of classifying traded products used by customs authorities around the world. Every entry filed with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) requires an HTSUS code, and […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2026-07-10T11:00:22-04:00July 10, 2026|Import, Reasonable Care, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|0 Comments

ICYMI: Patio Furniture Company Agrees to Pay $4.9 Million to Resolve Duty Evasion Allegations
Gallery
ICYMI: Patio Furniture Company Agrees to Pay $4.9 Million to Resolve Duty Evasion Allegations
AD/CVD, Enforcement, Import, International Trade, penalty, Reasonable Care, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

ICYMI: Patio Furniture Company Agrees to Pay $4.9 Million to Resolve Duty Evasion Allegations

On July 24, 2025, the Department of Justice (DoJ) announced that Grosfillex, Inc., a Pennsylvania furniture company, agreed to pay $4.9 million to resolve allegations it evaded antidumping and countervailing duties (AD/CVD).

Grosfillex submitted false forms to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) claiming that furniture parts made of extruded aluminum from China were not subject to AD/CVD. The company attempted to hide the aluminum extrusions by falsely packing them as sham “furniture kits.” Additionally, for a different subset of extrusions, the company failed to correct customs forms it had submitted previously, even after learning that the forms contained false information.

The investigation arose from a whistleblower lawsuit filed under the False Claims Act by a former employee of Grosfillex. Under the False Claims Act, private citizens can sue on behalf of the government and share in any recovery. In this case, the whistleblower will receive $962,662.74.

Duty Evasion is on the Rise

This case is just one example of the growing incentive to cheat that comes with higher tariffs. Whether it’s through misclassifying goods, undervaluing imports, or using deceptive transshipment routes, some companies think they are being creative, but, instead, are participating in outright illegal strategies to reduce their tariff liability.

Higher tariffs have even contributed to the emergence of a cottage industry of “tariff reduction” companies that suggest ways to cut import costs. However, many of these so-called strategies amount to evasion, […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2025-08-01T10:51:46-04:00August 1, 2025|AD/CVD, Enforcement, Import, International Trade, penalty, Reasonable Care, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)|0 Comments

CIT Hands Down $3.4M Penalty for Duty Evasion
Gallery
CIT Hands Down $3.4M Penalty for Duty Evasion
Enforcement, Import, International Trade, penalty, Reasonable Care, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

CIT Hands Down $3.4M Penalty for Duty Evasion

On July 18, 2025, the Court of International Trade (CIT) granted the government’s motion for default judgment against importer Rayson Global and its owner, Doris Cheng, for negligently failing to pay duties.

The Case

The government’s case was filed in 2023, alleging that the importers had falsely declared that Chinese-origin goods as Thai origin to evade duties. The government asserted this false declaration avoided payment of ordinary 6% duties, Section 301 duties ranging from 10% to 25%, and 234.51% antidumping duties.

The government asked the court to impose a penalty for negligence. The penalty amount is twice the loss of revenue or the domestic value, whichever is lower. After the importer failed to answer the complaint (a huge mistake), the U.S. moved for summary judgment.

The CIT granted the government’s motion and ordered the importer to pay a nearly $3.4 million penalty as well as all unpaid duties, taxes, and cash deposits on the unliquidated entries in question.

Duty Evasion is on the Rise

This case is just one example of the growing incentive to cheat that comes with higher tariffs. Whether it’s through misclassifying goods, undervaluing imports, or using deceptive transshipment routes, some companies are turning to creative or outright illegal strategies to reduce their tariff liability.

These incentives have even contributed to the emergence of a cottage industry of “tariff reduction” companies that suggest ways to cut import costs. However, many of these so-called strategies amount […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2025-07-25T10:16:59-04:00July 25, 2025|Enforcement, Import, International Trade, penalty, Reasonable Care, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)|0 Comments

Importing Drones into the U.S.: Key CBP Requirements You Need to Know
Gallery
Importing Drones into the U.S.: Key CBP Requirements You Need to Know
Import, Intellectual Property Rights, Reasonable Care, Technology

Importing Drones into the U.S.: Key CBP Requirements You Need to Know

Authors:
Jennifer Diaz, President, Diaz Trade Law
Jonathan Rupprecht, Aviation Attorney at Rupprecht Law

Importing goods into the U.S. requires navigating a web of regulations that spans 47 federal agencies. If you are the importer of record, it is your duty to exercise “reasonable care” in meeting these obligations. As part of this duty, importers must take adequate steps to properly classify and determine the value of imported goods, provide information to CBP in properly assessing duties, and determine whether other applicable legal standards and requirements have been met.

When importing drones into the U.S., importers need to be mindful of several requirements including classification, intellectual property, additional duties, and a changing U.S. trade policy.

Classification

When importing goods into the United States, importers must correctly classify their products. The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) is the primary resource for classifying goods and determining which tariffs apply.

The HTSUS is issued annually by the International Trade Commission (ITC). It is comprised of a 10-digit import classification system that is specific to the United States. This 10-digit code encompasses the World Customs Organization’s (WCO) six-digit uniform classification system shared among more than 200 countries.

An HTSUS is formatted to list the first 6-digits set forth by the WCO, also known as a heading and subheading and the last four digits assigned by the ITC that are specific to the U.S.

Prior to 2022, the HTSUS has lacked classifications specific to Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS). Importers had to classify under codes applicable to crewed aircraft […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2025-02-28T07:10:28-05:00February 28, 2025|Import, Intellectual Property Rights, Reasonable Care, Technology|0 Comments

Summary of CBP’s March 2023 Forced Labor Technical Expo

Summary of CBP’s March 2023 Forced Labor Technical Expo

CBP held a Forced Labor Technical Expo from March 14-15, comprised of experts and service providers highlighting tools to utilize for supply chain transparency to comply with The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) and the general “reasonable care” obligations of U.S. importers. UFLPA was signed into law December 31, 2021, and seeks to prohibit imports of certain goods from China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, where it has been reported that the Chinese government is using forced labor of Uyghur Muslims and other ethnic and religious minorities in detention camps and factories. For more information about the UFLPA, please see our previous blog articles here and here.

CBP Data Dashboard

CBP launched a UFLPA data dashboard where the trade community can now monitor forced labor enforcement by origin, commodity, CBP Center of Excellence and Expertise, and more. See the screenshot of the new dashboard below and note that the countries of export most targeted are NOT China, contrary to popular belief. This is partly due to the fact that most UFLPA enforcement to date has been on solar panels, which may include Chinese-origin raw materials but are generally further manufactured outside of China. Notably, CBP is actively tracking many different types of products across many different industries with raw materials that originate in China and that are further manufactured in other countries for forced labor enforcement. […]

By Jennifer Diaz|2023-03-29T11:58:29-04:00March 29, 2023|China, Forced Labor, International Trade, Reasonable Care, Supply Chain, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)|0 Comments

12 Next