U.S. Customs and Border Protection · CROSS Database · 1 HTS code referenced
Primary HTS Code
6912.00.39
$73.7M monthly imports
Compare All →
Court Cases
3 cases
CIT & Federal Circuit
Ruling Age
34 years
Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Census Bureau Trade Data, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-04-28 · Updates monthly
The tariff classification of stoneware dinnerware from Japan.
NY 870975 February 12, 1992 CLA-2-69:S:N:N3D:227 870975 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6912.00.39 Mr. Robert Sperling Excel Importing Corp. 99 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd. Garden City, NY 11530 RE: The tariff classification of stoneware dinnerware from Japan. Dear Mr. Sperling: In your letter dated January 28, 1992, you requested a tariff classification ruling. The merchandise at issue is stoneware dinnerware that is identified as in the Summer Garden pattern. The information submitted indicates that the Summer Garden pattern dinnerware is principally for household use and is "available in specified sets" in accordance with Chapter 69, additional U.S. note 6(b) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, with an aggregate value of $41.75. The applicable subheading for the Summer Garden pattern stoneware dinnerware will be 6912.00.39, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for ceramic household tableware, other than of porcelain or china, available in specified sets, in a pattern for which the aggregate value of the articles listed in additional U.S. note 6 (b) of Chapter 69 is over $38. The rate of duty will be 4.5 percent ad valorem. This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Section 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177). A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction. Sincerely, Jean F. Maguire Area Director New York Seaport
Other CBP classification decisions referencing the same tariff code.
CIT and CAFC court opinions related to the tariff classifications in this ruling.