U.S. Customs and Border Protection · CROSS Database · 1 HTS code referenced
Primary HTS Code
8531.80.00
$120.1M monthly imports
Compare All →
Court Cases
2 cases
CIT & Federal Circuit
Ruling Age
22 years
Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Census Bureau Trade Data, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-04-29 · Updates monthly
The tariff classification of warning devices from Australia
NY J89073 November 13, 2003 CLA-2-85:RR:NC:1:112 J89073 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 8531.80.00 Ms. Deanne Trethewey StarLogixs 27 Young Street Deepwater N.S.W. 2371 Australia RE: The tariff classification of warning devices from Australia Dear Ms. Trethewey: In your letter dated October 1, 2003 you requested a tariff classification ruling. As indicated by the submitted descriptive literature, there are two warning devices in question, identified as a “LineSafe” Personnel Protector, and a “LineSafe” Plant Protector. Each of these devices can detect the proximity of electrical transmission lines and, in response, will produce either a visual or audible warning. The Personnel Protector is battery operated and is designed to be used in conjunction with a hard hat. The Plant Protector is intended for use on high clearance mobile machinery. The applicable subheading for the “LineSafe” Personnel Protector and Plant Protector will be 8531.80.00, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for other electric sound or visual signaling apparatus. The rate of duty will be 1.3 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 David Curran at 646-733-3017. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division
Other CBP classification decisions referencing the same tariff code.
CIT and CAFC court opinions related to the tariff classifications in this ruling.