U.S. Customs and Border Protection · CROSS Database · 1 HTS code referenced
Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-06-18 · Updates real-time
The tariff classification of a Fisher-Price Snack Tray from China
NY H88765 March 6, 2002 CLA-2-87:RR:NC:MM:101 H88765 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 8708.29.5060 Ms. Vicki Owens Logistics Coordinator Blue Ridge International Products Company P.O. Box 989 Freeport, Florida 32439 RE: The tariff classification of a Fisher-Price Snack Tray from China Dear Ms. Owens: In your letter dated February 18, 2002 you requested a tariff classification ruling. You submitted a sample of the Fisher-Price Snack Tray. This snack tray is constructed of plastic. It is designed for a motor vehicle and has a snap-shut lid that holds snacks and the drink holder is designed to hold a cup or box drinks – thus helping to prevent messy spills. The snack tray has a universal clamp that snuggly attaches to a motor vehicle door. The applicable subheading for the Fisher-Price Roller Shade 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 646-733-3008. 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.