Every door is shut, and 179 exclusions expire on 9 November
There is no live US process that accepts a tariff exclusion request. The exclusions still in force lapse on 9 November 2026, as the schedule stands. Whether USTR extends them is not known — and the last 3 times it did, the notice was published after the date they were due to lapse. This site publishes exactly which exclusions, drawn from the tariff schedule, what happened every previous time, and the complete record of the processes that used to exist.
Why this catches people out. An exclusion is claimed by your customs broker against a tariff-schedule note subdivision, not by product name. What an importer sees is a duty rate — not an expiry date. As the schedule stands, that rate changes for affected entries after 9 November, and no process is open to apply for a new exclusion.
See all 179 expiring exclusions, with descriptions and HTS codes →
Check your own entries first — it is free. If you are the importer of record, the ES-003 report in the ACE Portal lists the Chapter 99 numbers claimed on each of your entry lines. A line that claimed 9903.88.69 or 9903.88.70 relies on an exclusion that lapses on 9 November. Your customs broker filed those entries and can tell you the same. The full list, and what happened every previous time.
The archive, and why it is here
Between 2018 and 2020, 52,746 exclusion requests were decided. That record is published here in full — per tranche, per HTS heading, cross-checked against the published GAO figure to within 4 records in 52,746. It is not a forecasting tool and makes no claim to be one — it is evidence that the numbers on this site are checkable.
What this archive cannot tell you. No dataset here links the grounds argued to the outcome on the same row — the 2018–20 records carry outcomes without grounds, and the one corpus with grounds carries no outcomes. So there is no honest answer here to “which argument wins”, and this site does not offer one. See the data catalogue.
Grant rate by tranche
Rates are computed over decided requests and reported per tranche. They are never averaged across tranches, because each tranche ran a different process — a different filing system, a different form, and a different volume of requests.
| Tranche | Requests | Granted | Denied | Grant rate | Filing window |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| List 1 $34B action (July 6, 2018) |
10,814 | 3,656 | 7,158 | 33.8% (95% CI 32.9–34.7%, n=10,814) | Jul 11 2018 – Oct 9 2018 |
| List 2 $16B action (August 23, 2018) |
2,869 | 1,074 | 1,795 | 37.4% (95% CI 35.7–39.2%, n=2,869) | Sep 18 2018 – Dec 18 2018 |
| List 3 $200B action (September 24, 2018) |
30,283 | 1,497 | 28,786 | 4.9% (95% CI 4.7–5.2%, n=30,283) | Jun 30 2019 – Sep 30 2019 |
| List 4A $300B action (September 1, 2019) |
8,780 | 575 | 8,205 | 6.5% (95% CI 6.1–7.1%, n=8,780) | Oct 31 2019 – Jan 31 2020 |
The collapse between List 2 and List 3 is a process boundary, not a product story. Lists 1–2 were filed as documents to regulations.gov. Lists 3–4A were filed through a separate USTR portal with a longer form, and drew roughly three times as many requests. Reading the fall from ~35% to ~5% as evidence that later products were weaker would be a mistake.
The correction nobody has published
Request counts are extremely concentrated. The single largest filer accounts for 19.4% of all 52,746 requests on its own; the ten largest account for 32.7% and the hundred largest for 53.9%. Of 4,787 distinct filers, 1,967 filed exactly one request.
That means the widely-quoted headline rate is dominated by a handful of very large filers and does not describe the position of an importer filing a small number of requests. Both views:
| Tranche | All filers | Excluding filers with >100 requests | Requests in the corrected view |
|---|---|---|---|
| List 1 | 33.8% (95% CI 32.9–34.7%, n=10,814) | 33.1% (95% CI 32–34.1%, n=7,641) | 7,641 |
| List 2 | 37.4% (95% CI 35.7–39.2%, n=2,869) | 30.2% (95% CI 28.2–32.3%, n=1,920) | 1,920 |
| List 3 | 4.9% (95% CI 4.7–5.2%, n=30,283) | 9.1% (95% CI 8.6–9.6%, n=12,878) | 12,878 |
| List 4A | 6.5% (95% CI 6.1–7.1%, n=8,780) | 7.6% (95% CI 6.9–8.3%, n=5,225) | 5,225 |
| All four (cross-tranche) | 12.9% (95% CI 12.6–13.2%, n=52,746) | 16.9% (95% CI 16.4–17.3%, n=27,664) | — |
Counted per filer rather than per request, the median filer's grant rate was 0% and the mean was 17.6%. 26.2% of filers won at least one request.
On the last row. The cross-tranche figures blend four different processes and are shown only because they are the numbers in public circulation. Prefer the per-tranche rows for any real use.
Where to go next
- Expiring 9 November — all 179, with descriptions, HTS codes and a CSV for your broker.
- Live processes — what is open today, what closed and when, and the dates that bind you.
- By HTS heading — 706 four-digit headings, each with its own per-tranche rates.
- What importers argued — the 2024–25 machinery docket, the only Section 301 exclusion corpus whose argued grounds are public.
- Arguing to keep an exclusion — the extension and reinstatement dockets, where argument and outcome could yet meet.
- Methods & sources — provenance, the GAO cross-check, and what this data cannot tell you.