U.S. Customs and Border Protection · CROSS Database · 1 HTS code referenced
Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-06-17 · Updates real-time
The tariff classification of motor vehicle Hip Clip Seat Belt Adjuster from China
NY F88295 June 21, 2000 CLA-2-87:RR:NC:MM:101 F88295 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 8708.29.5060 Ms. Betty Pettis Planning and Logistics Office Blue Ridge International Products Company P.O. Box 989 Freeport, Florida 32439-0989 RE: The tariff classification of motor vehicle Hip Clip Seat Belt Adjuster from China Dear Ms. Pettis : In your letter dated June 2, 2000 you requested a tariff classification ruling. You submitted a sample of a motor vehicle Hip Clip Seat Belt Adjuster, Style # 50032. The item is an accessory designed to reposition the lap and shoulder belt for a comfortable fit and helps to prevent the shoulder belt from rubbing against the neck. The Seat Belt Adjuster is made of 100% plastic polypropylene. The applicable subheading for the Hip Clip Seat Belt Adjuster will be 8708.29.5060, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for Parts and accessories of the motor vehicles of headings 8701 to 8705: Other parts and accessories of bodies (including cabs): Other: Other…Other. The rate of duty will be 2.5% 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 212-637-7035. 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.