Section 122 HTS Codes: 9903.03.* After the May 7 CIT Ruling

Informational only — not legal advice.

If your entry dated on or after February 24, 2026 shows a 9903.03.* code, you are looking at the Section 122 temporary import surcharge family — not IEEPA, not Section 232, and not Section 301.

Section 122 was the replacement duty program that CBP began collecting one minute after ending IEEPA collection. It uses a different statute, a different Chapter 99 family, and a separate litigation posture. Treating it as "IEEPA under a new name" is a common mistake that leads to wrong refund assumptions.

Background on Section 122

Section 122 is a balance-of-payments authority that allows the president to impose a temporary import surcharge or quantitative restrictions to address serious international payments problems. It is a trade statute, but it is narrower and more temporary than the broad emergency-powers posture the administration tried under IEEPA.

That matters because the February 2026 shift from IEEPA to Section 122 was not just a relabeling exercise. It was a move from one legal theory to another, with a new Chapter 99 family, a new proclamation chain, and a separate litigation posture. So when a document shows 9903.03.*, the right question is not “is this still IEEPA?” but “how does this specific Section 122 line work?”

Current status

As of May 8, 2026:

• CBP implemented Section 122 through 9903.03.01-.11 beginning February 24, 2026 at 12:01 a.m. ET
• the CIT has declared Proclamation No. 11012 invalid as contrary to law
• the court entered a permanent injunction for The State of Washington and its instrumentalities, Burlap and Barrel, Inc., and Basic Fun, Inc.
• the judgment orders Section 122 duties paid by those importer plaintiffs before implementation to be refunded with interest as provided by law
• the court declined a universal injunction
• no general public Section 122 refund workflow has been verified in the sources reviewed for this update

Litigation: May 7 CIT decision

On May 7, 2026, a three-judge CIT panel issued Slip Op. 26-47 in the consolidated state and private-importer Section 122 cases. Judges Barnett and Kelly formed the majority; Judge Stanceu dissented.

The majority held that Proclamation No. 11012 used trade and current-account concepts in place of "balance-of-payments deficits" as that phrase was understood when Congress enacted Section 122 in 1974. The court accepted the proclamation's factual statements for purposes of the ruling but held those facts did not identify the required statutory deficit.

For entry analysis, the immediate point is narrow but important: 9903.03.* remains the identifier for Section 122 entries, but legal and refund treatment is now post-ruling and should not be described as an ordinary live-duty status with no court decision.

How to use this page with our HTS tool

1. Click the exact 9903.03.* code from the entry.
2. In the HTS tool, confirm the code and note whether it is the default surcharge or an exemption/carveout heading.
3. Compare it with the base Chapter 1-97 classification and any other overlays on the line.
4. Use the entry timestamp, because the Section 122 cutover begins one minute after the IEEPA cutoff.

Full Section 122 code list

• 9903.03.01-.11: 9903.03.01, 9903.03.02, 9903.03.03, 9903.03.04, 9903.03.05, 9903.03.06, 9903.03.07, 9903.03.08, 9903.03.09, 9903.03.10, 9903.03.11

Common confusions

• Section 122 is 9903.03.*, not 9903.45.*.
• Section 122 is not a continuation of IEEPA under a new label. It is a different statute and a different Chapter 99 family.
• 9903.03.01 is the default surcharge line. The other 9903.03.* headings are carveout / in-transit / exception-style lines and should not all be read as the same duty outcome.