U.S. Customs and Border Protection · CROSS Database · 1 HTS code referenced
Primary HTS Code
3926.90.9980
$838.1M monthly imports
Compare All →
Court Cases
4 cases
CIT & Federal Circuit
Ruling Age
17 years
Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Census Bureau Trade Data, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-05-07 · Updates monthly
The tariff classification of a portable ashtray from China
N037495 September 29, 2008 CLA-2-39:OT:RR:NC:SP:221 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 3926.90.9980 Ms. Mary Boehlert BIC Corporation One BIC Way, Suite 1 Shelton, CT 06484-6299 RE: The tariff classification of a portable ashtray from China Dear Ms. Boehlert: In your letter dated September 3, 2008, you requested a tariff classification ruling. The sample submitted with your request is a portable ashtray. The ashtray is a pouch-like container, measuring approximately 3 1/8 inches square, with a flap top with snap button. The ashtray is composed of ethylene vinyl acetate plastic sheeting that has been lined with aluminum foil. The ashtray is meant to be used by cigarette smokers to extinguish and hold cigarette butts to prevent littering. The sample is being returned as you requested.The applicable subheading for the portable ashtray will be 3926.90.9980, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for other articles of plastics, other. The rate of duty will be 5.3 percent ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. 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 Joan Mazzola at (646) 733-3023. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division
CIT and CAFC court opinions related to the tariff classifications in this ruling.