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 G86320 - NY G86371 > NY G86336

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
NY G86336

February 6, 2001

CLA-2-64:RR:NC:N3:347 G86336


TARIFF NO.: 6402.99.90

Mr. Gary Gessler
Sandler & Travis Trade Advisory Services, Inc. 38345 Ten Mile Road, Suite 200
Farmington Hills, MI 48335

RE: The tariff classification of cycling shoes from China.

Dear Mr. Gessler:

In your letter dated January 10, 2001, you requested a tariff classification ruling on behalf of Specialized Bicycle Components.

You have submitted a sample of what you state is a cycling shoe, the “BMX TJ.” You state that this shoe features a dual-density sole, with a sturdy rubber outer sole. The upper is composed of synthetic leather and textile (fabric) and also features a lace-tie closure. You state that this upper is composed of 80% synthetic leather and 20% textile (fabric) by surface area. You also state that the synthetic leather portion of the upper is polyurethane based.

You suggest that the “BMX TJ” shoe should be classified as “sports footwear.” You claim that the sole of the “BMX TJ” shoe is specifically designed to mesh with the toothed configuration of BMX style bicycle pedals and that the presence of the specially designed outer sole makes this a cycling shoe for purposes of Subheading Note 1, Chapter 64, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). You also state that this shoe features a foxing-like band and is valued over $12.00 per pair.

The Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) defines sports footwear in Subheading Note 1 of chapter 64, and states that “for the purposes of subheadings 6402.12, 6402.19, 6403.12, 6403.19, and 6404.11, the expression “sports footwear” applies only to:

Footwear which is designed for a sporting activity and has, or has provision for the attachment of spikes, sprigs, cleats, stops, clips, bars or the like; Skating boots, ski boots and cross-country ski footwear, snowboard boots, wrestling boots, boxing boots and cycling shoes.

We do not agree that the “toothed configuration” design of the soles of these shoes is a feature that distinguishes them as “cycling shoes.” Customs has previously ruled on numerous occasions that classification as “cycling shoes” for purposes of Subheading Note 1.(b), Chapter 64, (HTSUS), requires a special design feature on the shoe that allows for the attachment of the shoe to a bicycle pedal; the fact that the soles are “specially designed to mesh with the toothed configuration of the BMX style bicycle pedals,” as you state in your letter, is not enough. The soles of the “BMX TJ” are suitable for everyday walking. We do not consider these shoes to be cycling shoes within the definition of “sports footwear” for purposes of chapter 64, HTSUS.

Style “BMX TJ” has a rubber/plastic and textile upper, lace-tie closures, and rubber outer soles with a foxing or foxing-like band that overlaps the upper by more than ¼ inch all around the shoe’s perimeter. Visual examination of these shoes indicates that the greatest external surface area of the upper (ESAU) is the plastic material, although the uppers are not over 90% rubber/plastics. The applicable subheading for the “BMX TJ” will be 6402.99.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear in which the upper and outer sole’s external surface area is rubber and/or plastics, not covering the ankle, having an upper external surface area which is not over 90% rubber and/or plastics, which is valued over $12.00 per pair. The general rate of duty will be 20% percent ad valorem.

We also note that the submitted sample is not marked with the country of origin. Therefore, if imported as is, the sample submitted will not meet the country of origin marking requirement of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Accordingly, the shoes 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.”

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: