EXCLUSIVE: US court ruling revives dormant tariff precedent affecting mobility equipment imports
A US Federal Circuit ruling is now reshaping tariff treatment for disability‑related and mobility equipment imports into the United States. Kevin G. Strafford‑Price, CEO of Avalon Stairlifts, comments…
Across Europe — and particularly in the UK — there is a familiar reaction whenever American regulatory news surfaces: “What is going on over there?” From shifting tariff classifications to retroactive enforcement and evolving definitions, the US system can appear unpredictable compared with the relative stability of UK and EU frameworks.
The latest development from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a prime example — and one with direct implications for mobility and HME (home medical equipment) manufacturers exporting to the US.
A long‑dormant legal precedent has re‑emerged, reshaping how disability‑related products are classified at the border and catching many importers off guard. The ruling, originally issued in 2018, is now being actively enforced by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP), with consequences that reach far beyond the original case.
For decades, many HME importers relied on a broad interpretation of HTSUS 9817.00.96, the US duty‑free tariff provision for articles “specially designed or adapted” for persons with disabilities. The assumption was simple: if a product was used by disabled individuals, it qualified.
The Federal Circuit’s decision in Sigvaris, Inc. v. United States overturned that assumption. The court held that disability‑related tariff exemptions apply only when a product is objectively engineered for a specific class of disabled individuals and is not designed for the general population.
This narrower standard remained largely unnoticed for years. CBP did not immediately enforce it, and many in the industry were unaware of its implications.
That changed when a prominent British stairlift manufacturer sought clarification on tariff treatment — inadvertently prompting CBP to revisit the dormant precedent. Once CBP reapplied the Sigvaris standard, a wave of reclassifications followed across disability‑related imports.
Kevin Strafford-Price, CEO & Founder of Avalon Stairlifts
CBP has now begun applying the ruling across a wide range of mobility and accessibility products, including scooters, powered mobility equipment, walkers, rollators, lift chairs, adjustable beds, bath safety equipment, ramps, and stairlift components.
Many of these products were never engineered to meet the narrower U.S. definition of “specially designed or adapted”, yet have historically been entered under HTSUS 9817.00.96. The result is a growing risk of retroactive duties, interest charges, negligence penalties, and up to five years of historical exposure.
In the US system, Federal Circuit decisions apply retroactively, and CBP cannot waive statutory requirements simply because the industry was unaware of the precedent. For UK and EU exporters accustomed to CE/UKCA frameworks and EN standards, this retroactive enforcement model is unfamiliar — and potentially costly.
For European readers, it is worth briefly explaining the legal machinery behind these developments. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the highest authority for customs, tariffs, patents, and trade law, and its decisions are binding nationwide.
Once the Federal Circuit rules, agencies like CBP must enforce that ruling, even years later. There is no “grandfathering” and no transition period.
The Sigvaris decision lay dormant simply because CBP did not initially apply it aggressively. It remained largely unknown outside legal circles until a British manufacturer’s request for clarification forced CBP to revisit the issue.
The US system is deeply shaped by litigation, and court rulings can reshape entire industries overnight. For UK and EU manufacturers, this can feel like the rules are being rewritten without warning.
Avalon Stairlifts imports only parts — not complete lifts — and classifies them under HTSUS 8431, a heading unaffected by Sigvaris or the current CBP enforcement shift. Our approach has always reflected the realities of the US regulatory environment, where tariff law, safety expectations, and liability standards differ markedly from those in Europe.
From our perspective, many European stairlifts — while well suited to their home markets — are not engineered for the specific regulatory environment and more aggressive recall structure in the United States. The requirements differ markedly, which is why Avalon was developed as a purpose‑built US design rather than an adaptation of an existing European platform.
Manufacturers, distributors, and importers exporting to the US may now need to reassess their tariff classifications, review the engineering documentation supporting any “specially designed or adapted” claims, and evaluate their historical use of HTSUS 9817.00.96.
They may also need to consider their exposure to retroactive duties and penalties, and whether their products genuinely meet the disability‑specific engineering criteria now required under US law. This is not a theoretical risk — CBP is already issuing reclassifications and assessing duties.
Kevin G. Strafford-Price is CEO and Founder of North Carolina-based Avalon Stairlifts. He previously led MediTek Stairlifts in the UK for 30 years and co-designed early battery-powered stairlifts in the 1980s/90s.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Importers should consult qualified US trade counsel regarding their specific circumstances.
Stay up-to-date on the latest news, views, jobs and products in the mobility industry by subscribing to THIIS Magazine online here.
