HTS classification, CROSS ruling research, CIT/CAFC case mapping for US trade law. Analyzes products, finds applicable rulings, and traces legal precedent.
Library skill — the default version is maintained in GitHub; edits you make live in your own clone.
Audience: Licensed customs brokers, trade-compliance counsel, or in-house import managers working under a licensed reviewer. Not for self-service use by importers without compliance review, and not for unsupervised drafting of binding ruling requests, Customs Form 28/29 responses, or § 177 submissions.
Work shape: - Module 1 (HTS Classification) — Accretive Judgment. Output is a ranked-candidates worksheet with GRI reasoning and exposed assumptions, handed back to a licensed broker or trade attorney who signs the binding classification call. - Module 2 (CROSS Ruling Research) — Pattern-Matched Review. Output is a list of cited rulings with authority level and current status, reviewed by counsel before reliance. - Module 3 (CIT/CAFC Case Mapping) — Accretive Judgment. Output is mapped precedent with risk framing, reviewed before being cited in any opinion or ruling request.
This skill provides legal support, not legal advice or a binding classification. A candidate classification output is a draft worksheet for the reviewer — not a primary classification, not a § 177 ruling request, and not a basis for entering merchandise.
Three legal failure modes are addressed structurally:
Advice vs. support. Outputs are draft worksheets, not finished classification opinions. The skill does not produce a single "primary" HTS number on its own authority. The reviewer-of-record (a licensed customs broker or trade attorney) makes the classification call and signs the deliverable. Misclassification carries civil and potentially criminal exposure under 19 U.S.C. § 1592 (negligence, gross negligence, fraud); the named reviewer — not the skill — bears that responsibility.
Privilege. When the skill is used inside counsel's work, outputs should be marked DRAFT — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT / PRIVILEGED and treated as such. The skill is silent on who the client is in any given matter; the user must determine whether the analysis is being prepared at the direction of counsel for the purpose of giving legal advice, and route storage/circulation accordingly. Do not share draft outputs outside the privileged circle without explicit instruction.
Accountability. Every classification worksheet requires a named human reviewer (broker license number or bar number where applicable) before it is acted upon, cited in a § 177 ruling request, or used to support an entry. The skill does not sign off and does not certify a classification as correct.
Input: Product description with all of: name, components/composition, principal use, country of origin, and (where relevant) the importer's intended use.
If composition, country of origin, or principal use is missing, halt and ask. Do not infer composition from the product name.
Process: 1. Identify candidate headings (4-digit level) 2. Apply General Rules of Interpretation (GRI 1-6) 3. Apply Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation 4. Determine subheading (6-digit level typically) 5. Surface ranked candidates with GRI reasoning and assumptions 6. Assign confidence band (see Confidence Bands below)
Output (candidate classification worksheet — for licensed customs counsel or licensed broker review): - Ranked candidate classifications with HTS numbers (not a single "primary" call) - For each candidate: GRI path, applicable Section/Chapter Notes, and reasons it is or is not the correct heading - Explicit assumptions (composition, use, country of origin, end user) made in the analysis - Confidence band (High / Medium / Low) per the definitions below - Flagged controversies, GRI 3 essential-character disputes, and unresolved issues - Reviewer signoff line: name, license/bar number, date, and reviewer's classification call - Privilege/draft marking on the deliverable
Input: Product description or existing candidate classification.
Process: 1. Search CBP's CROSS database 2. Evaluate HQ vs. NY authority (HQ overrides NY) 3. Trace revocation chains (identify any ruling later revoked or modified) 4. Assess evidence quality: verified published rulings vs. identifications vs. internal advice 5. Verify status as of run date — flag if CROSS retrieval was incomplete
Output: - List of applicable rulings with full citation - Authority level (HQ, NY, Chicago, etc.) - Current status (current / revoked / modified / pending revocation) - Side-by-side of ruling facts vs. user's product - Flag where retrieval may be incomplete or status could not be confirmed
Input: HTS candidate(s) or product description.
Process: 1. Find relevant judicial decisions 2. Extract holdings (note: where the skill retrieves slip-opinion text, the source and retrieval date must be cited) 3. Map precedent to classification risk 4. Identify cases that support or undermine each candidate classification
Output: - List of relevant cases with citations and retrieval source - Key holdings relevant to the classification question - Risk framing based on case-law strength (not a litigation prediction)
Each candidate classification carries an explicit band:
This skill addresses HTS classification, CROSS ruling research, and CIT/CAFC case mapping for US imports. It does not cover and should not be relied on for:
Route these to qualified counsel or the appropriate specialist regime.
The skill stops and routes to a named reviewer or licensed counsel — rather than producing a recommended classification — in any of the following cases:
Escalation produces a structured handoff (not a classification): the question presented, the rulings and cases retrieved, the assumptions made, what is missing, and a recommended next step (§ 177 ruling request, internal compliance review, or trade-counsel referral). The named reviewer — licensed customs broker, licensed customs attorney, or in-house trade-compliance counsel — owns the call from that point forward.
LegalQuants applied a QA-remediation pass to this skill in May 2026, following the Legal Skill Design Framework used by the Legal Builder Hub. Original substantive authorship and attribution remain with M. Onur Kafkas; LegalQuants's contribution is structural.
Changes made in this pass:
version, last_reviewed, and last_reviewed_by fields. Author attribution preserved.Technical substance — the GRI methodology, the HQ/NY authority hierarchy, the revocation-chain logic, the CIT/CAFC mapping approach — is unchanged from the original. The remediation is structural: it restructures outputs as draft worksheets handed back to a licensed reviewer, defines confidence bands, enumerates escalation triggers, and addresses § 1592 exposure, privilege handling, and accountability that the original SKILL.md left to a one-line disclaimer.