Nairobi Protocol Tariff Exemption FAQs

The Nairobi Protocol tariff exemption is a special Chapter 98 duty-free treatment for certain articles specially designed or adapted for the use or benefit of blind persons or persons with physical or mental disabilities. In the HTSUS, the key provisions are generally 9817.00.92, 9817.00.94, and 9817.00.96.

The Nairobi Protocol Opportunity Scanner reviews public website pages within the selected scan scope, or product catalog PDFs you upload, to identify products worth further review. It is an opportunity-screening tool, not a full product eligibility assessment. The Nairobi Protocol Product Analyzer uses detailed product-specific answers and supporting information, including optional document uploads, to produce a more focused preliminary assessment. Neither tool guarantees eligibility or duty-free treatment.

Use the Opportunity Scanner when you want to look for possible opportunities across publicly available product pages or an uploaded product catalog. Its results are limited to the information it can access and the pages reviewed; a scan does not establish that an entire website or catalog has been exhaustively assessed. If you already have a specific product in mind, you can go directly to the Product Analyzer and provide the relevant product facts and evidence.

HTSUS 9817.00.96 generally covers "other" qualifying articles specially designed or adapted for the use or benefit of blind or physically or mentally disabled persons, including certain qualifying parts and accessories. It is often the main Nairobi Protocol provision used for assistive products that do not fall into the more specific blind-person article provisions.

It is usually a secondary Chapter 98 claim, not a replacement for the ordinary Chapter 1–97 classification. The importer still needs the regular HTSUS classification, then analyzes whether a Chapter 98 Nairobi Protocol provision can also be claimed.

No. A medical device does not qualify just because it is used in healthcare. The product must be specially designed or adapted for the use or benefit of qualifying persons with a permanent or chronic impairment, and it must not fall within one of the U.S. Note 4(b) exclusions.

For 9817.00.92, 9817.00.94, and 9817.00.96, U.S. Note 4(a) focuses on persons with a permanent or chronic physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, such as self-care, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, or working.

Usually no. Articles for acute or transient disability are excluded under U.S. Note 4(b), so products mainly intended for short-term recovery, temporary pain, or temporary injury are high-risk for denial.

The product must be intended for a specific class of disabled users to a greater extent than for other users. The Federal Circuit's Sigvaris, Inc. v. United States decision is the key case, and CBP applies a fact-specific analysis rather than a simple yes/no label test.

The Sigvaris framework looks at factors such as the product's physical properties, whether general-public use is unlikely, whether the importer or manufacturer is recognized in the disability-products field, whether the product is sold through specialty disability channels, and whether the condition of the article at importation shows disability-oriented design.

Not always. CBP weighs the facts case by case. A strong physical design feature may help a lot, but weak marketing, broad general-public use, or a Note 4(b) exclusion can still create risk.

No. ADA compliance can be helpful evidence, but courts and CBP have said that ADA compliance alone is not enough to prove that an item is specially designed or adapted for purposes of 9817.00.96.

Sometimes, but dual-use products are harder. The more the product looks useful, marketed, and commonly purchased by the general public, the more evidence is needed to show that it is specially designed or adapted for qualifying disabled users.

Helpful evidence includes design specifications, product literature, user manuals, intended-use statements, clinical or functional use explanations, packaging, marketing materials, distribution-channel evidence, customer base information, and comparisons to ordinary products.

Risky evidence includes general wellness marketing, convenience-focused marketing, broad consumer retail positioning, claims that the product is for "anyone," lack of disability-specific design features, or facts showing common use by the general public.

Yes, certain parts and accessories can qualify if they are specially designed or adapted for use in qualifying Nairobi Protocol articles.

No. Medicines and drugs are excluded under U.S. Note 4(b).

Therapeutic and diagnostic articles are specifically excluded under U.S. Note 4(b).

Generally no, if they are for individuals who are not substantially disabled. U.S. Note 4(b) specifically excludes spectacles, dentures, and cosmetic articles for individuals not substantially disabled.

The analysis is usually product-by-product and class-of-users focused, not based on one individual purchaser. The importer should show that the article is designed or adapted for a qualifying class of users with permanent or chronic impairments that substantially limit major life activities.

Yes. CBP considers whether the article is sold through specialty channels serving disabled individuals and whether the manufacturer or distributor is recognized in that product class.

Yes. The product must be evaluated as imported. If disability-oriented components, adaptations, packaging, instructions, or design features are not present at importation, that can weaken the claim.

Usually no. A general household product does not qualify merely because it is useful to disabled users. The question is whether the product is specially designed or adapted for qualifying disabled users to a greater extent than for the general public.

Possibly. A product can still be for the use or benefit of a disabled person even if a caregiver operates it. The key is whether the article is specially designed or adapted to benefit qualifying disabled users, not merely whether the physical operator is disabled.

It can affect additional duty exposure, but this must be checked against the current Chapter 99 language and entry instructions. For China Section 301, trade guidance has noted that additional Section 301 duties generally do not apply when entry is properly claimed under a qualifying Chapter 98 provision, subject to exceptions.

Not usually as a first step. Missing evidence — brochures, specifications, marketing or sales-channel information — is something to gather with your customs broker or trade counsel. A binding ruling is worth discussing with them when the claim turns on a genuine legal question, such as whether a product compensates for a condition or treats it (the Note 4(b) therapeutic exclusion), whether ordinary consumers use it in the same way, or a dual-use or high-value product close to an exclusion. Nairobi Protocol eligibility is very fact-specific, and a prior ruling on a similar product does not automatically control a different product.

No. The Opportunity Scanner identifies potential opportunities from public information, and the Product Analyzer provides a more detailed preliminary assessment. Nairobi Protocol eligibility is highly fact-specific and depends on the product's design, use, marketing, sales channels, condition at importation, supporting documentation, and the exclusions in U.S. Note 4(b). Neither tool guarantees that CBP will agree with a result. For high-value entries, close calls, dual-use products, medical or therapeutic products, or products with limited supporting evidence, importers should consider requesting a binding ruling from CBP or consulting trade counsel before relying on the exemption.