Reading a macadamia tariff proposal: product lists and applied rates

A product appearing on a proposed tariff list does not, by itself, establish the duty payable on a macadamia shipment. The distinction matters when reading the September 2026 U.S.-China Board of Trade documents: USTR described recommendations for possible better treatment, while the linked product list identifies particular forms of macadamias.

In its statement dated 27 September 2026, the Office of the United States Trade Representative said the two sides had recommended non-sensitive goods that could receive more favorable tariff treatment in the future. That is the status reported in this reference; the statement is not treated here as a notice setting an applied macadamia tariff.

The linked China Import List is explicitly an unofficial English translation. On physical PDF page 15, rows 514-516 distinguish 08026110 for fresh or dried in-shell macadamias for cultivation, 08026190 for fresh or dried in-shell macadamias not for cultivation, and 08026200 for fresh or dried shelled macadamias. Those descriptions identify the listed products; they do not supply an applied duty rate in those rows.

The cultivation distinction is easy to lose when a summary says only that macadamias are included. So is the difference between in-shell and shelled product. Keeping the full code and its description together preserves what this particular translated list says without treating every macadamia product as interchangeable.

For document checking, keep three questions separate: what was recommended, which exact product description was listed, and what implementing instrument establishes the treatment being claimed. This reference answers the first two from the cited documents. It does not establish the current duty for a shipment, an effective date for a tariff change, eligibility under an origin rule, or that the proposal has since been implemented.

This is a research reference to USTR's statement dated 27 September 2026 and its linked unofficial translation. It is not a report of a new 19 October trade-policy change. The PDF's own publication date is not stated in the reviewed document; its association with the statement does not create a separate publication timestamp.