U.S. Customs and Border Protection · CROSS Database · 1 HTS code referenced
Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-05-18 · Updates real-time
The tariff classification of a Car Back Seat Organizer from Hong Kong orTaiwan.
NY C89385 July 1, 1998 CLA-2-87:RR:NC:MM:101 C89385 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 8708.29.5060 Mr. Errol Cohen Way-2-Go L.L.C. 200 Fifth Ave., Suite 940 New York, NY 10010 RE: The tariff classification of a Car Back Seat Organizer from Hong Kong or Taiwan. Dear Mr. Cohen: In your letter dated July 8, 1998, you requested a tariff classification ruling. The item is a back seat organizer which can be used in a motor vehicle. It is specially designed for children. It is designed to store drink containers, toys, books, drinks, pens, etc. It is placed at the back of the front seat facing the child passenger in the rear seat. It has easy access for a child to reach any item required. You will add an animal (or person or cartoon character) face to the top of the organizer, feet at the bottom and hands in the middle to hold a toy. The applicable subheading for the car back seat organizer will be 8708.29.5060, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for automotive body parts and accessories. The rate of duty will be 2.6 percent ad valorem. This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177). A copy of the ruling or the control number indicated above should be provided with the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If you have any questions regarding the ruling, contact National Import Specialist Robert DeSoucey at 212-466-5667. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division
Other CBP classification decisions referencing the same tariff code.
Trade notices, proposed rules, and final rules related to the tariff codes in this ruling.
Aluminum Extrusions From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiries
CIT and CAFC court opinions related to the tariff classifications in this ruling.