z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Chewing it Over: Determining the Meaning of Edible In the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
Author(s) -
Ben Baumgartner
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
kansas law review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1942-9258
pISSN - 0083-4025
DOI - 10.17161/1808.20392
Subject(s) - meaning (existential) , schedule , tariff , business , economics , international trade , psychology , management , psychotherapist
“Definitions of the word ‘edible’ are scarcely essential, since its meaning is so well known.” 1 Initially, such a statement seems uncontroversial. Something is edible if it can be eaten. Yet, when the word is examined more carefully, its definition soon becomes much less clear. Is anything that can be eaten edible? Are poisonous berries edible? Is an airplane edible if someone eats it? 2 If “something that can be eaten” is not a workable definition of edible, what alternative, or alternatives, should be used? Such questions are not posed merely as an intellectual exercise, but have important economic ramifications. When a good is imported into the United States, it is classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 3 The word edible shows up repeatedly throughout the HTSUS, and whether a good is edible often affects its classification. A good’s classification in turn determines in large part the applicable tariff rate. 4 The applicable tariff rate ultimately affects how much the government may collect in tariffs and how much an importer must pay.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom