Planning Use SEO page 425

CBP ruling request template: facts to collect first

Planning Use only. Broker review required for Entry Use.

A CBP ruling request is strongest when it reads like a fact file, not a code guess. The request should explain the article, the facts that matter, the documents attached, the HTS candidates considered, and the exact question for review.

quick answer

For cbp ruling request template, start with a Product Evidence packet: product description, materials, function, origin steps, photos, specs, invoice, HTS candidates, missing facts, and CROSS rulings. Use the template for Planning Use before Broker or customs authority review.

facts to collect before drafting

Product name, commercial description, SKU, model number, and whether the article is finished, unfinished, a part, a set, or a kit.
Composition by material, weight, value, or component where relevant.
Function, end use, parent article, retail channel, and what the product does at import.
Manufacturing and origin steps: forming, cutting, molding, assembly, programming, packaging, and last substantial transformation facts.
Photos, drawings, spec sheets, BOM, product page, labels, packaging, invoice, and supplier code.
Candidate HTS families, CROSS rulings reviewed, rejected alternatives, and why each one was accepted or rejected for Planning Use.
Missing facts that must be resolved before Entry Use review.

missing facts

Do not hide gaps in the request. If material, function, origin, use, or imported condition is uncertain, list the gap and the document needed. A clean-looking request with unsupported facts is weaker than a packet that admits what is missing.

HTS candidate notes

Use the USITC HTS to name candidate families, then use CBP CROSS to compare fact patterns. The request should not ask CBP to fix a vague product description. It should give enough facts to let the ruling question be answered.

authority sources

Use 19 CFR 177.2 as the fact checklist. Use CROSS as precedent research, not as a copy-paste answer.

planning path

Build the request in four blocks: facts, attachments, candidate analysis, and question. Keep one table for Product Facts and one table for Missing Facts. Add a short authority trail that shows official sources checked.

For mixed-material goods, put components in a table. For parts, show the parent article and installed position. For sets, list every item and explain whether one article gives the set its character.

Before sending the request onward, run a Planning Use review: no unsupported code, no hidden missing facts, no Entry Use claim, and no broker-replacement language.

The template should also keep attachments named in a way a reviewer can follow. "Photo 1 front," "Photo 2 underside," "BOM supplier version," and "invoice sample" are more useful than a pile of screenshots. If a fact comes from an attachment, cite the attachment beside the fact.

Do not pad the request with broad legal language. The useful part is the product record: what is imported, what it is made of, how it works, where it was made, and which classification question needs review.

questions importers ask

Can I send a ruling request with only a supplier code?

No. The request needs product facts, attachments, and the question being asked.

Should rejected HTS candidates be included?

Yes. Rejected paths help show what was considered and why it was not used.

What if facts are still missing?

Keep the packet in Planning Use and collect the missing evidence before relying on it.

internal links

planning boundary

This CBP ruling request template page is a planning artifact. It is not an Entry Use classification, not a binding ruling, and not a legal opinion. The importer remains responsible for reasonable care and must obtain broker or customs authority review before filing.

Turn this search into a file

Run a free Duty Surprise Scan, then build a Planning Use Classification Record when the Missing Facts matter.

Start scan today →