United States International Trade Commision Rulings And Harmonized Tariff Schedule
faqs.org  Rulings By Number  Rulings By Category  Tariff Numbers
faqs.org > Rulings and Tariffs Home > Rulings By Number > 1997 NY Rulings > NY 813809 - NY 814292 > NY 814089

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
NY 814089


CLA-2-64:R:N3:347 814089


TARIFF NO.: 6402.99.18

Mr. Joseph F. Straus
BBC International Ltd.
19 West 34th Street
New York, NY 10001

RE: The tariff classification of footwear.

Dear Mr. Straus:

In your letter dated August 24, 1995, you requested a reconsideration of Customs Ruling DD 812772.

DD 812772 dated August 3, 1995 described the submitted sample, style TAW 73004RS, as a woman's athletic shoe with a plastic and textile upper with lace closures and a rubber and/or plastic sole. The sole features toe and heel bumpers and a wave on one side which overlaps the upper. The shoe does not have a foxing-like band. You stated that the external surface area of the upper (ESAU) is 91.5 percent rubber/plastic and 8.5 percent textile. However, visual examination of the shoe revealed that the textile collar and a gray textile portion running horizontally along both sides of the shoe comprised at least 10 percent of the ESAU.

Customs ruled that the applicable subheading for this shoe will be 6402.99.70, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) which provides for footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastic, not having uppers of which over 90 percent of the external surface is rubber or plastic. The duty rate will be 90 cents per pair plus 37.5 percent ad valorem.

You now submit a sample which you state is identical to the shoe originally submitted with ruling DD 812772. You do not identify this shoe by style number nor is the style number evident anywhere on the shoe. You state that the gray material which runs horizontally along both sides of the shoe is 100 percent polyurethane, thereby resulting in an upper which is over 90 percent rubber or plastic and subsequently changing the tariff classification to 6402.99.18 (HTS) with a duty rate of 6 percent ad valorem.

Visual examination of this shoe confirms that the gray material running horizontally along both sides of this shoe is a plastic material differing from the corresponding material on the original shoe submitted with ruling request DD 812772. A piece of the gray material from the original sample has been examined by this office and is considered textile material. Hence this office sees no cause for reconsideration of Ruling DD 812772.

The applicable subheading for the shoe submitted now will be 6402.99.18, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastic, not covering the ankle, having uppers of which over 90 percent of the external surface area is rubber or plastic. The rate of duty will be 6 percent ad valorem.

As an importer, you are responsible for supplying a complete and accurate description for imported merchandise to U.S. Customs to allow for the correct classification of goods entering the United States. The accuracy of information supplied may be verified by laboratory analysis at the time of importation.

The submitted samples are not marked with the country of origin. Therefore, if imported as is, they will not meet the country of origin marking requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Accordingly, the footwear would be considered not legally marked under the provisions of 19 C.F.R. 134.11 which states, "every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the U.S. shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly, and permanently as the nature of the article (or container) will permit, in such manner as to indicate to the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. the English name of the country of origin of the article."

This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Section 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177).

A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction.


Roger J. Silvestri

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: