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 > 1998 NY Rulings > NY D82232 - NY D82300 > NY D82267

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
NY D82267

September 23, 1998

CLA-2-64:RR:NC:TA:347 D82267


TARIFF NO.: 6402.19.15

Mr. John B. Pellegrini
Ross & Hardies
65 East 55 St.
New York, NY 10022-3219

RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China

Dear Mr. Pellegrini:

In your letter dated September 4, 1998, on behalf of your client Elan-Polo, Inc., you requested a tariff classification ruling.

The sample you have submitted is a man's metal cleated high-top baseball shoe, identified as "Pattern R2000". The shoe has a predominately rubber/plastic upper and outer sole. The upper has a textile "moustache" and a textile label in the heel area and we will presume, as you state, that these textile component portions represent less than 10% of the upper's external surface area. The shoe has an EVA midsole component, which you call a heel stabilizer, that overlaps the upper at the sole by more than 1/4 inch to as much as 1 inch, extending backward from the instep and continuing around the heel. You state that this area of overlap measures an encirclement of approximately 45% (by our measurement it is closer to 50%) of the perimeter of the shoe and we agree with you that there is no overlap evident at all around the entire remaining front and side sections. In fact, no area of overlap is even visible when looking at this shoe from the front, even if a lot of overlap can be readily seen when viewed from the side. A previous Customs Headquarters determination held that a similar sport shoe did not exhibit a foxing-like band because all the overlap was in the front of the shoe and there was no overlap visible from the rear of the shoe. We are of the opinion that on this shoe, even though the overlap of the upper at the sole is confined almost entirely to the rear half portion, we can likewise conclude that now again there is no substantial encirclement of the shoe by a foxing-like band. We therefore consider this shoe not to have a foxing or a foxing-like band.

The applicable subheading for this baseball shoe with metal cleats, Pattern R2000, will be 6402.19.15, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear, in which both the upper's and the outer sole's external surface is predominately rubber and/or plastics; which is "sports footwear"; in which the upper's external surface is over 90% rubber and/or plastics , including any accessories and reinforcements; which does not have a foxing-like band; which is not designed to be a protection against water, oil, or cold or inclement weather; and which is other than golf footwear. The rate of duty will be 5.3% ad valorem.

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

A copy of the ruling or the control number indicated above should be provided with the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If you have any questions regarding the ruling, contact National Import Specialist Richard Foley at 212-466-5890.


Robert B. Swierupski

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: