Notice2026-02778
Monosodium Glutamate From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-2024
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
February 11, 2026
Issuing agencies
Commerce DepartmentInternational Trade Administration
Abstract
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds that Ajinoriki MSG (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (Ajinoriki), the sole company subject to the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on monosodium glutamate (MSG) from the People's Republic of China (China) covering the period of review (POR) November 1, 2023, through October 31, 2024, is not eligible to receive a separate rate and is, therefore, considered part of the China-wide entity. Furthermore, Commerce finds that, because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity for the POR, the China-wide entity is not under review, and the China-wide entity's rate (i.e., 40.41 percent) is not subject to change.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 28 (Wednesday, February 11, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 11, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6188-6191]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-02778]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-992]
Monosodium Glutamate From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2023-
2024
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily finds
that Ajinoriki MSG (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (Ajinoriki), the sole company
subject to the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
monosodium glutamate (MSG) from the People's Republic of China (China)
covering the period of review (POR) November 1, 2023, through October
31, 2024, is not eligible to receive a separate rate and is, therefore,
considered part of the China-wide entity. Furthermore, Commerce finds
that, because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity for
the POR, the China-wide entity is not under review, and the China-wide
entity's rate (i.e., 40.41 percent) is not subject to change.
DATES: Applicable February 11, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Cloyd, AD/CVD Operations,
Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1246.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On January 6, 2015, Commerce published the Order \1\ in the Federal
Register. On November 1, 2024, Commerce notified interested parties of
the opportunity to request an
[[Page 6189]]
administrative review of the Order.\2\ Pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of
the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2),
Ajinoriki timely filed a request for an administrative review.\3\ On
December 18, 2024, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), Commerce
published a notice of initiation of this administrative review.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Monosodium Glutamate from the People's Republic of
China: Second Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value and Amended Antidumping Duty Order, 80 FR 487 (January 6,
2015) (Order); see also Monosodium Glutamate from the People's
Republic of China, and the Republic of Indonesia: Antidumping Duty
Orders; and Monosodium Glutamate from the People's Republic of
China: Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value,
79 FR 70505 (November 26, 2014).
\2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative
Review and Join Annual Inquiry Service List, 89 FR 87338 (November
1, 2024).
\3\ See Ajinoriki's Letter, ``Request for Administrative
Review,'' dated December 2, 2024.
\4\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 89 FR 102856 (December 18, 2024) (Initiation
Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Initiation Notice, Commerce stated that exporters in a
proceeding involving a non-market economy (NME) country must timely
file a Separate Rate Application (SRA) or Separate Rate Certification
(SRC) ``if they want to be considered for individual examination,'' and
provided an opportunity for interested parties to file SRCs or SRAs.\5\
We received no SRA or SRC from Ajinoriki, the only company under
review. Because we received no SRA or SRC, and, as discussed below,
Commerce finds that Ajinoriki, the only company subject to this review,
is part of the China-wide entity and is not eligible for individual
examination. Further, because the China-wide entity is not subject to
this review, there are no calculations for these preliminary results of
review and no decision memorandum accompanies this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id., 89 FR at 102857-8 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the Order is MSG from China. For a complete
description of the scope of the Order, see the appendix to this notice.
Methodology
Commerce considers China to be an NME country.\6\ In accordance
with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. Therefore, for these preliminary results, we
treated China as an NME country and applied our current NME methodology
in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Aluminum Foil
from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary
Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value and Postponement of
Final Determination, 82 FR 50858, 50861 (November 2, 2017), and
accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum (PDM) at 7-8 (citing
Memorandum, ``China's Status as a Non-Market Economy,'' dated
October 26, 2017), unchanged in Certain Aluminum Foil from the
People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value, 83 FR 9282 (March 5, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rate Determinations
In a proceeding involving an NME country, Commerce maintains a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and, therefore, should be assessed a
single weighted-average dumping margin.\7\ Commerce notified parties in
the Initiation Notice that ``{t{time} he deadline and requirement for
submitting a Separate Rate Application applies equally to NME-owned
firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase
and export subject merchandise to the United States.'' \8\ Also in the
Initiation Notice, Commerce notified parties of the application process
by which exporters may obtain separate rate status in this
administrative review.\9\ This process requires exporters to submit an
SRA \10\ and to demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto
government control over their export activities. In the Initiation
Notice, Commerce required that all firms listed in the notice ``that
wish to qualify for separate rates status in the administrative reviews
involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a
{SRA{time} or {SRC{time} . . .'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip
from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 55039, 55040 (September 24, 2008).
\8\ See Initiation Notice.
\9\ See Initiation Notice, 89 FR at 102857.
\10\ For a description of our practice, see Enforcement and
Compliance's Policy Bulletin No. 05.1, regarding ``Separate-Rates
Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping
Investigations Involving Non-Market Economy Countries,'' (April 5,
2005), available on Commerce's website at <a href="https://access.trade.gov/Resources/policy/bull05-1.pdf">https://access.trade.gov/Resources/policy/bull05-1.pdf</a>.
\11\ See Initiation Notice, 89 FR at 102858.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce's policy is to assign all exporters of merchandise under
consideration that are in an NME country this single rate unless an
exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to
be entitled to a separate rate.\12\ Commerce analyzes whether each
entity exporting the merchandise under consideration is sufficiently
independent under a test established in Sparklers from China \13\ and
further developed in Silicon Carbide from China.\14\ In accordance with
this separate rate test, Commerce will assign a separate rate in an NME
proceeding if a respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure
and de facto government control over its export activities. If,
however, Commerce determines that a company is wholly foreign owned,
then a separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether
that company is independent from government control and eligible for a
separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589
(May 6, 1991) (Sparklers from China).
\13\ Id.
\14\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59
FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide from China).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce continues to evaluate its practice with regard to the
separate rates analysis in light of the Diamond Sawblades from China
\15\ proceedings and its determinations therein. In particular, in
litigation involving the Diamond Sawblades from China proceeding, the
U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) found Commerce's existing
separate rates analysis deficient in the circumstances of that case, in
which a government-owned and controlled entity exercised control over
the respondent exporter.\16\
[[Page 6190]]
Following the CIT's reasoning, in recent proceedings, we have concluded
that where a government entity holds a majority equity ownership,
either directly or indirectly, in the respondent exporter, this
interest in and of itself means that the government exercises or has
the potential to exercise control over the company's operations
generally.\17\ This may include control over, for example, the
selection of board members and management, key factors in determining
whether a company has sufficient independence in its export activities
to merit a separate rate. Consistent with our normal separate rate
practice, any ability to control, or possess an interest in
controlling, the operations of the company including the selection of
board members, management, and the profit distribution of the company
by a government entity is subject to Commerce's rebuttable presumption
that all companies within the NME country are subject to government
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's
Republic of China, Consol. Court No. 09-00511, Slip Op. 12-147 (CIT
November 30, 2012), dated May 6, 2013, available at <a href="https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/12-147.pdf">https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/12-147.pdf</a>, in Advanced Technology &
Materials Co., Ltd., et al. v. United States, 885 F.Supp.2d 1343
(CIT 2012) (Advanced Technology I), aff'd Advanced Technology &
Materials Co. v. United States, 938 F.Supp.2d 1342 (CIT 2013), aff'd
Advanced Technology & Materials Co. v. United States, Court No.
2014-1154 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Diamond Sawblades and Parts
Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 78 FR 77098
(December 20, 2013), and accompanying Preliminary Decision
Memorandum (PDM) at 7, unchanged in Diamond Sawblades and Parts
Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012, 79 FR 35723 (June
24, 2014), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 1 (collectively, Diamond Sawblades from China).
\16\ See, e.g., Advanced Technology I, 885 F.Supp.2d at 1349
(CIT 2012) (``The court remains concerned that Commerce has failed
to consider important aspects of the problem and offered
explanations that run counter to the evidence before it.''); Id.,
885 F.Supp.2d at 1351 (``Further substantial evidence of record does
not support the inference that SASAC's {state-owned assets
supervision and administration commission{time} `management' of its
`state-owned assets' is restricted to the kind of passive-investor
de jure `separation' that Commerce concludes.'') (footnotes
omitted); Id., 885 F.Supp.2d at 1355 (``The point here is that
`government control' in the context of the separate rate test
appears to be a fuzzy concept, at least to this court, since a
`degree' of it can obviously be traced from the controlling
shareholder, to the board, to the general manager, and so on along
the chain to `day-to-day decisions of export operations,' including
terms, financing, and inputs into finished product for export.'');
Id., 885 F.Supp.2d at 1357 (``AT&M itself identifies its
`controlling shareholder' as CISRI {owned by SASAC{time} in its
financial statements and the power to veto nomination does not
equilibrate the power of control over nomination.'') (footnotes
omitted).
\17\ See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from the
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Preliminary Affirmative Determination of
Critical Circumstances, in Part, 79 FR 53169 (September 8, 2014),
and accompanying PDM at 5-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to demonstrate eligibility for separate rate status,
Commerce normally requires an exporter for which a review was
requested, and which was assigned a separate rate in a previous
completed segment of the proceeding and which remains active for that
exporter, to submit an SRC stating that it continues to meet the
criteria for obtaining a separate rate.\18\ For an exporter that was
not assigned a separate rate in a previously completed segment of the
proceeding and which remains active for that exporter, to demonstrate
eligibility, Commerce requires an SRA.\19\ A company that submits an
SRA or SRC and which is subsequently selected for examination must
respond to all parts of Commerce's questionnaire in order to be
eligible for a separate rate.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Initiation Notice.
\19\ Id.
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Initiation Notice, Commerce stated that submission of SRAs
and SRCs were due 30 days after publication of the notice, i.e.,
January 17, 2025.\21\ Moreover, Commerce specifically noted that
``{t{time} he deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate
Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned
firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise
to the United States.'' \22\ Ajinoriki, the sole company subject to
this review, failed to submit an SRA as it did not have separate rate
status. As such, consistent with Commerce's practice for when a party
fails to submit an SRA or SRC, we preliminarily find that Ajinoriki is
not eligible for a separate rate, and, therefore, is part of the China-
wide entity.\23\ Commerce's practice with respect to an exporter that
fails to submit an SRA or SRC has been upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit.\24\ Commerce further notes that,
because this review was initiated with respect to only one company
(i.e., Ajinoriki), there are no remaining companies subject to review,
including the China-wide entity.\25\ As a result, Commerce did not need
to limit examination or select respondents and therefore did not place
U.S. Customs and Broder Protection (CBP) data on the record for that
purpose. Furthermore, because no company or the China-wide entity were
eligible for examination, Commerce did not issue a questionnaire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Id.
\22\ Id., 89 FR at 102858.
\23\ See e.g., Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether
or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final
Determination of No Shipments; 2012-2013, 80 FR 40998 (July 14,
2015) (treating a company as part of the China-wide entity for
failure to submit an SRA, and explaining that ``{t{time} he failure
to provide a separate rate certification is not a ministerial error,
but rather, a failure to comply with {Commerce{time} 's well
established separate rate methodology.''); see also, e.g.,
Hydrofluorocarbon Blends from the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2019-2020, 86
FR 49516, 49517 (September 3, 2021) (finding that PureMann, Inc.
(PureMann), the sole company subject to the review, did not file an
SRA and did not demonstrate its eligibility for separate rate status
and that, therefore, PureMann was part of the China-wide entity).
\24\ See Repwire LLC v. United States, 628 F.Supp.3d 1288 (CIT
2023), aff'd 2025 WL 2399398 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 19, 2025) (finding that
``Commerce's actions were reasonable and supported by substantial
evidence'' in a case in which Commerce rescinded an initial
questionnaire and found that Jin Tiong Electrical Materials
Manufacturer PTE. Ltd. (Jin Tiong) was part of the China wide entity
due to its failure to submit a timely SRA).
\25\ See Initiation Notice, 89 FR at 102862.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
China-Wide Entity
Under Commerce's policy regarding the conditional review of the
China-wide entity,\26\ the China-wide entity will not be under review
unless a party specifically requests, or Commerce self-initiates, a
review of the entity. Because no party requested a review of the China-
wide entity during this POR, the China-wide entity is not under review,
and the China-wide entity's rate (i.e., 40.41 percent) is not subject
to change.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Announcement of Change in
Department Practice for Respondent Selection in Antidumping Duty
Proceedings and Conditional Review of the Nonmarket Economy Entity
in NME Antidumping Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 65963 (November 4, 2013).
\27\ See Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Results of Review
Because Ajinoriki failed to timely file an SRA in this review, we
preliminarily find that it is ineligible for a separate rate and is
considered part of the China-wide entity.
Disclosure
Normally, Commerce will disclose to the parties in a proceeding the
calculations performed in connection with preliminary results of review
within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public
announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice
of preliminary results in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.224(b). However, because Commerce finds that the sole exporter
of MSG subject to review is part of the China-wide entity and Commerce
has not initiated a review of the China-wide entity, there are no
calculations to disclose for these preliminary results of review.
Public Comment
Case briefs and other written comments may be submitted to the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Pursuant to 19 CFR
351.309(c), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to
submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date
of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues
raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after
the date for filing case briefs.\28\ Interested parties who submit case
briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) a table
of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities.\29\ An
electronically filed document must be received successfully in its
entirety in ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on the established
deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See 19 CFR 351.309(d); see also Administrative Protective
Order, Service, and Other Procedures in Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 88 FR 67069, 67077 (September 29,
2023) (APO and Service Final Rule).
\29\ See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we
request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their
briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their
briefs.\30\ Further, we request that
[[Page 6191]]
interested parties limit their public executive summary of each issue
to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use
the public executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries
included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the
final results in this administrative review. We request that interested
parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the public
executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain
of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR
351.303(f).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ We use the term ``issue'' here to describe an argument that
Commerce would normally address in a comment of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum.
\31\ See APO and Service Final Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to
request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via
ACCESS. An electronically filed hearing request must be received
successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system,
ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. ET within 30 days after the date of publication of
this notice.\32\ Hearing requests should contain: (1) the party's name,
address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; (3)
whether any participant is a foreign national; and (4) a list of issues
to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those
raised by each party in their respective case and rebuttal briefs. An
electronically filed request must be received successfully in its
entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days of the
publication date of this notice. If a request for a hearing is made,
parties will be notified of the time and date of the hearing.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See 19 CFR 351.301(c).
\33\ See 19 CFR 351.310(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, the final
results of this review shall be the basis for assessment of antidumping
duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review.\34\ Upon
issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this
review.\35\ Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no
earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results
of this review in the Federal Register. If a timely summons is filed at
the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will
direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties
to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (i.e., within
90 days of publication).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
\35\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the final results of this review, if we continue to find that
Ajinoriki is not eligible for a separate rate and treat it as part of
the China-wide entity, we will instruct CBP to apply the ad valorem
weighted-average dumping margin for the China-wide entity, i.e., 40.41
percent,\36\ to assess antidumping duties for all entries of subject
merchandise during the POR which was exported by Ajinoriki.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ See Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements for estimated antidumping
duties will be effective upon publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from
China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after
the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the
Act: (1) for subject merchandise exported by a company with a separate
rate from a previously completed segment of this proceeding, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate,
or produced-exporter-specific rate, for that exporter, (2) for all
exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be
entitled to a separate rate, i.e., the China-wide entity, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be 40.41 percent.
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until further notice.
Final Results of Review
Unless otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final
results of this administrative review, including the results of its
analysis of issues raised in case and rebuttal briefs, within 120 days
of publication of these preliminary results of review in the Federal
Register, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Notification to Importers
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement
of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double
antidumping duties.
Notification to Interested Parties
We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19
CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: February 6, 2026.
Christopher Abbott,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Negotiations, performing the
non-exclusive functions and duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
Appendix
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order are monosodium glutamate
(MSG), whether or not blended or in solution with other products.
Specifically, MSG that has been blended or is in solution with other
product(s) is included in this order when the resulting mix contains
15 percent or more of MSG by dry weight. Products with which MSG may
be blended include, but are not limited to, salts, sugars, starches,
maltodextrins, and various seasonings.
Further, MSG is included in this order regardless of physical
form (including, but not limited to, in monohydrate or anhydrous
form, or as substrates, solutions, dry powders of any particle size,
or unfinished forms such as MSG slurry), end-use application, or
packaging. MSG in monohydrate form has a molecular formula of
C5H8NO4Na-H2O, a Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) registry number of
6106-04-3, and a Unique Ingredient Identifier (UNII) number of
W81N5U6R6U. MSG in anhydrous form has a molecular formula of
C5H8NO4Na, a CAS registry number of 142-47-2, and a UNII number of
C3C196L9FG.
Merchandise covered by this order is currently classified in the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) of the United States at subheading
2922.42.10.00. Merchandise covered by this order may also enter
under HTS subheadings 2922.42.50.00, 2103.90.72.00, 2103.90.74.00,
2103.90.78.00, 2103.90.80.00, and 2103.90.90.91. These tariff
classifications, CAS registry numbers, and UNII numbers are provided
for convenience and customs purposes; however, the written
description of the scope is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2026-02778 Filed 2-10-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on February 11, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.