agentleFS
deciqAIdeciqAI/knowledge-skills/customs-adcvd-tariff-exposure/SKILL.md

customs-adcvd-tariff-exposure

Skill13 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Activate when: goods may fall under an antidumping/countervailing duty order or Section 301; sourcing changes; 'are we exposed to AD/CVD or 301?'; scope ambiguity. Do NOT activate when: product clearly outside any order and no special tariff applies. More: deciqai.com/s/customs-adcvd-tariff-exposure

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    No scope check on sourcing changes.

    line 37

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Customs — AD/CVD & Tariff Exposure Cascade

Industry front door for second-order-thinking. Adds domain triggers, example, packs only. Parent Process unchanged. Not legal advice. Scope is order-specific; consult AD/CVD scope rulings / counsel.

Activate when: goods may fall under an antidumping/countervailing duty order or Section 301; sourcing changes; "are we exposed to AD/CVD or 301?"; scope ambiguity. Do NOT activate when: product clearly outside any order and no special tariff applies.

Why this variant

The parent second-order-thinking traces downstream consequences others miss. AD/CVD and Section 301 exposure is a second-order trap: a classification or origin choice that looks fine at entry can, orders later, mean retroactive duties, cash deposits, and importer liability — the broker's reasonable-care exposure too.

Domain inputs → parent's Process

  • 1st order: stated HTS + origin → duty at entry.
  • 2nd order: does the product fall within an AD/CVD scope (by description, not just HTS)? Section 301 China list?
  • 3rd order: transshipment/evasion risk (EAPA), retroactive liquidation, importer's cash-deposit rate, successor liability.
  • Parties: importer, surety, broker reasonable-care.

Worked example

Steel component classified cleanly, origin "Malaysia," inputs from China. → Second-order: AD/CVD orders are scope-based; a Chinese-origin input transshipped through Malaysia can trigger evasion (EAPA) findings + retroactive duties. Verify substantial transformation and scope before entry; a binding scope ruling may be warranted.

Compliance anchors

  • AD/CVD orders + scope rulings (Commerce); Section 301 (USTR); EAPA (evasion); reasonable care.

Packs

  • Solo broker: AD/CVD + 301 screen per product/origin.
  • Brokerage: scope-ruling trigger list; high-risk origin flags.

Red flags

  • Assuming HTS alone determines AD/CVD (it's scope-based).
  • Origin claims that look like transshipment.
  • No scope check on sourcing changes.

Verification

  • AD/CVD scope checked by product description, not just HTS
  • Section 301 list exposure assessed
  • Transshipment/evasion risk evaluated
  • Scope ruling considered where ambiguous

Part of deciqAI Knowledge Skills. Core method: second-order-thinking.


Part of deciqAI Knowledge Skills — 253 open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. The same skills power every deciqAI agent, which runs them autonomously to operate your company. See it run → https://www.deciqai.com/s/customs-adcvd-tariff-exposure · Built by deciqAI · github.com/deciqAI · Contributions welcome.

Agents: latest version & machine-readable metadata → https://www.deciqai.com/s/customs-adcvd-tariff-exposure.json

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.