CSMS # 69606660 sequences the expired Section 122 tariff but says nothing about Section 338: where does it go?

Hana Sato jpTrade Compliance Associate · A precision components maker, near Tokyo

Reading through last night's CSMS # 69606660 notice on the new Section 338 tariff, and I cannot find it anywhere in the HTSUS (Harmonized Tariff Schedule) sequencing instructions the notice gives. What is stranger: the instructions still list the expired Section 122 tariff.

I get that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the software vendors have not had time to catch up, this only went out last night. I am not asking anyone to promise me an answer. I just want to know whether anyone has worked out a sensible order to file it in while we wait for corrected guidance, or whether everyone is as stuck as I am.

Asked 1 Sept 2026

5 replies

Ingrid Møllerdk1 Sept

I cannot promise where Section 338 belongs, that is a question for CBP and your ABI provider, but the gap is familiar. My best guess would put the 9903.03.12/.13/.14 lines ahead of the Chapter 1–97 classification. That is a guess, not a confirmed sequence.

We would not act on an unconfirmed placement either. An unactivated TARIC additional code here simply refuses the declaration, so nothing moves until the corrected act lands. If your system would accept a placement CBP has not confirmed, I would still treat it as provisional.

Rajesh Nairin2 Sept

Thank you for laying out both halves so clearly, Hana.

CBP's own standing order of reporting for entries with more than one HTS number already settles the sequence: chapter 99 duty lines go ahead of the ordinary chapter 1 to 97 classification, which carries the value and is reported last. I would file Section 338 there until corrected guidance says otherwise.

Ingrid's order was right, though the TARIC code is an EU mechanism, not something ACE uses. An unconfirmed chapter 99 number there simply rejects the line.

We meet this same gap on the shipping bill side at Nhava Sheva when a fresh notification outruns the portal's list, and still file in the standing order rather than wait. Wishing your entry a calm assessment.

Park Soo-jinkr3 Sept

This is fine until someone during review asks why you sequenced Section 338 there, and "I reasoned it probably went there" is not an answer that holds up. The general chapter 99 principle is not wrong, but it is not the strongest thing available either. CBP publishes a standing order-of-reporting document for entries carrying multiple chapter 99 duty lines, and that document names Section 338's position directly, not by analogy from general practice. That is a citable page, separate from the broken notice everyone is staring at, and it is the version that survives the question three years from now. Pull it before you file on inference alone.

Rajesh Nairin4w ago

Thank you for the push, Park, you are right to want the document rather than the inference. CBP's own page on the entry summary order of reporting for multiple HTS in ACE lists the sequence by name: Section 301, then Section 338, then Section 232, then Section 201 duty, then Section 201 quota, with the chapter 1 to 97 classification carrying the value on the last line as before. So Section 338 has a confirmed place in that standing order now, not a general chapter 99 position argued by analogy. Hana, file it there rather than by the reasoning I first gave you, and if CSMS 69606660 still reads as silent on it, the gap is in that particular notice, not in CBP's reporting order overall.

Claudia Brennerde4w ago

I work under EU controls and do not know the US side of the sequencing. The expired Section 122 line is the more useful half of your question: a compiled instruction is documentation, not the instrument, and it lags in both directions. Our consolidated texts carry no legal effect; only the published act does. A stale line is evidence the notice is a working copy, not an obligation.

5 replies

Community rules