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 > 2003 HQ Rulings > HQ 965866 - HQ 965938 > HQ 965898

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
HQ 965898

January 17, 2003

CLA-2 RR:CR:GC 965898 HEF


TARIFF NO.: 4201.00.60

Mr. Brian Kavanaugh
Deringer Logistics Consulting Group
1 Lincoln Boulevard
Rouses Point, New York 12979

RE: Revocation of NY H87074; horse boots

Dear Mr. Kavanaugh:

This is in response to your letter dated September 10, 2002, requesting reconsideration of New York Ruling Letter (NY) H87074, issued to Unitrans International Corporation on January 24, 2002, on behalf of Old Mac’s Pty Ltd., which classified certain horse boots under subheading 3926.90.98, of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for other articles of plastics and articles of other materials of headings 3901 to 3914: other: other. We have had an opportunity to review this ruling and have determined that it is incorrect.

Pursuant to section 625(c)(1) Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1625(c)(1)) as amended by section 623 of Title VI (Customs Modernization) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, (Pub. L. 103-82, 107 Stat. 2057, 2186), notice of the proposed revocation of NY H87074 and Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 085282, was published on November 27, 2002, in the Customs Bulletin, Volume 36, Number 48. No comments were received in response to this notice.


The subject merchandise is a horse boot of polyurethane plastic, with textile straps to secure it to the hoof of the horse. It is designed to allow the horse to tread over rugged terrain in comfort. Old Mac’s boots are designed for riding, transport, or rehabilitation after injury.


Whether the subject merchandise is classifiable as articles of plastic under subheading 3926.90.98, HTSUS, or saddlery and harness for any animal under subheading 4201.00.60, HTSUS.


Classification under the HTSUS is made in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs). GRI 1 provides that articles are to be classified by the terms of the headings and relative Section and Chapter Notes. For an article to be classified in a particular heading, the heading must describe the article, and not be excluded therefrom by any legal note. In the event that goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRIs may then be applied.

In understanding the language of the HTSUS, the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System Explanatory Notes (ENs) may be utilized. ENs, though not dispositive or legally binding, provide commentary on the scope of each heading of the HTSUS, and are the official interpretation of the Harmonized System at the international level. Customs believes the ENs should always be consulted. See T.D. 89-80, 54 Fed. Reg. 35127, 35128 (August 23, 1989).

The HTSUS provisions under consideration are as follows:

Other articles of plastics and articles of other materials of headings 3901 to 3914:



Saddlery and harness for any animal (including traces, leads, knee pads, muzzles, saddle cloths, saddle bags, dog coats and the like), of any material:

4201.00.60 Other.

EN 42.01, in pertinent part, states: “This heading covers equipment for all kinds of animals, of leather, composition leather, furskin, textiles or other materials. These goods include, inter alia, boots for horses.”

Horse boots are not defined in the HTSUS or the ENs. A tariff term that is not defined in the HTSUS or ENs is construed in accordance with its common or commercial meaning. Nippon Kogaku (USA) Inc. v. United States, 69 CCPA 89, 673 F.2d 380 (1982). Common and commercial meaning may be determined by consulting dictionaries, lexicons, scientific authorities and other reliable sources.

The definition of horse boots which Customs relied upon in HQ 085282, dated October 18, 1989, defined boot as “a protective sheath for a horse’s leg.” Webster’s II New Riverside University Dictionary (1984) at p. 190. Thus, in HQ 085282, Customs did not consider the item at issue, the “Soft Shoe”, as a horse boot because it was a protective shoe for the horse’s hoof and not the horse’s leg. We now believe this ruling to be incorrect and the definition relied upon to be too narrow for purposes of correctly construing the legislative intent of Congress in adopting heading 4201.

In another dictionary, “Boot” is defined as “a protective covering for the foot and part of the leg of a horse.” The Oxford English Dictionary (1989) at p. 404. Since this definition conflicts to some extent with the one previously relied upon by Customs, it is our opinion that the meaning of the term is imprecise such that a clear definition of that term cannot be determined. However, whenever the common meaning is somewhat indefinite, "it is proper to consider the interpretation commonly placed upon it in the particular industry involved." United States v. Colonial Commerce Co., Ltd., et al., 44 CCPA 18, C.A.D. 629 (1956).

Hence, we look to the tack industry with respect to marketing of these goods. Protective horse boots are designed to protect different parts of the horse’s leg and hoof. The area that a horse’s boot may protect extends from the oblique extensor of the knee and the superficial flexor tendon to the coronet band and hoof. Thus, the term horse boots seems to include not only articles forming a protective sheath for the horse’s leg, but also articles which cover solely the hoof. See About the Horse, at http://www.horseboots/athrs.html (Oct. 11, 2002). Examples of these articles include but are not limited to quarter boots, bell boots, and coronet boots.

Furthermore, the Court of International Trade stated that "[w]hile an importer's catalogs and advertisements are not dispositive in determining the correct classification of goods under the HTSUS, they are certainly probative of the way the importer viewed the merchandise and of the market the importer was trying to reach." THK America, Inc. v. U.S., 837 F. Supp. 427, 433 (1993); Marubeni America Corp. v. U.S., 821 F.Supp. 1521, 1528 (1993). Old Mac’s Pty Ltd. markets the subject merchandise as a multi-purpose horse boot. Old Mac’s horse boots are “used for transportation, injury prevention and/or rehabilitation, as well as a genuine replacement for the metal shoe in day to day riding.” See Old Mac’s Boots & Horse Care, at http://www.yourhorse.care.com/faq.htm (Sept. 10, 2002).

Current industry standards include horse boots which form a protective sheath for the horses leg as well as boots which cover only the hoof, and boots covering both the leg and hoof. It is Custom’s opinion that HQ 085282 construed the definition of “boots for horses” too narrowly. That ruling is also being reconsidered. Sources dating back to the 1940s have deemed horse boots as articles protecting either the horse’s leg or solely the horse’s hoof. See Margaret Cabell Self, Riding Simplified 7 (A.S. Barnes & Company, Inc. 1948) (Diagram featuring coronet boots, rubber boots, and boots (buckled on)). This evidence combined with the common and commercial meaning in the tack industry lead to the conclusion that horse boots include not only boots covering the horse’s leg but also boots which protect and cover the hoof only. It is important to note that bandages or wraps used for medical purposes such as the treatment of wounds are not classified as saddlery. Such items are more specifically provided for in heading 3005.

Thus, the subject merchandise’s proper classification is under subheading 4201.00.60, HTSUS, which provides for “Saddlery and harness for any animal (including traces, leads, knee pads, muzzles, saddle cloths, saddle bags, dog coats and the like), of any material: other.”


The subject merchandise is classifiable in subheading 4201.00.60 HTSUS, as “Saddlery and harness for any animal (including traces, leads, knee pads, muzzles, saddle cloths, saddle bags, dog coats and the like), of any material: other.”

Effect on Other Rulings:

NY H87074 is revoked.


Myles B. Harmon, Acting Director
Commercial Rulings Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: