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 > 2001 NY Rulings > NY G85773 - NY G85836 > NY G85809

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
NY G85809

February 14, 2001

CLA-2-64:RR:NC:TP:347 G85809


TARIFF NO.: 6402.99.70

Ms. Jane A. Sheridan
8300 Maryland Avenue
St. Louis, MI 63105

RE: The tariff classification of a rubber/plastic shoe from China.

Dear Ms. Sheridan:

In your letter dated January 23, 2001, you requested a tariff classification ruling.

You have submitted a sample of what you refer to as an athletic shoe with an upper of predominately plastics material and an outsole of rubber/plastics. You state that the unit molded outsole overlaps the upper around approximately 34% of the perimeter of the shoe. The shoe has a closed toe and a closed heel, a lace-tie closure, and does not cover the ankle. You also state that the shoe is valued between $3.00 and $6.50 per pair.

The front of this shoe is overlaid by a clear plastic toe cap piece and you ask whether this piece constitutes a “foxing-under.” An examination of the sample reveals that the plastic upper material stops at the featheredge, or where it meets the sole or insole; it is not lasted under nor cemented to the sole. The “clear plastic toe cap” piece, however, is lasted under and cemented to the sole. In this regard, the “clear plastic toe cap” piece becomes the upper of the shoe, and is not a “foxing-under.”

This shoe features a textile material where a traditional tongue would be. Unlike a traditional tongue, this material is on the same plane as the rest of the upper, therefore it is included as surface area.

The upper also features what you refer to as two textile gores on both sides of the “tongue area” and you ask whether this makes the shoe a “slip-on.” You would also like to know whether a slip-on shoe can be considered “athletic and the like.” Since this shoe has a lace-tie closure which can be tightened to secure the foot within the shoe, it is not a “slip-on” for purposed of chapter 64, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). In addition, we do not consider slip-on shoes to be “athletic and the like.”

The tongue area also has a rubber/plastic strip running down along it and a rubber/plastic patch with the name “SOSA” printed on it. These two pieces of material are accessories/reinforcements and therefore not counted in the surface area measurement of the upper of this shoe. Due to the textile tongue area, the two elastic textile gores on either side of the tongue area, and the textile trim exposed along the collar of the shoe, we presume that the upper is not over 90% rubber/plastics. The applicable subheading for the 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 plastics, not covering the ankle, having uppers of which not over 90% of the external surface area (including any accessories or reinforcements such as those mentioned in note 4(a) to this chapter) is rubber or plastics, valued over $3.00 but not over $6.50 per pair. The rate of duty will be 90 cents per pair plus 37.5% 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 212-637-7089.


Robert B. Swierupski

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: