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 > 1991 HQ Rulings > HQ 0089341 - HQ 0089541 > HQ 0089374

Previous Ruling Next Ruling


HQ 089374


August 12, 1991

CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 089374 DWS

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 6402.99.70; 6402.99.15

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

RE: Reconsideration of NY Ruling Letters (NYRL) 861783 and 859090; Athletic Shoes, Band, Foxing-like.

Dear Mr. Straus:

As requested by your letter of May 8, 1991, we have reconsidered NYRL 859090, dated January 17, 1991, and NYRL 861783, dated April 10, 1991, concerning the classification of athletic shoes under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA).

FACTS:

The subject article in NYRL 861783 is an adult athletic shoe with a plastic upper and a unit-molded sole. The sole has a "wave" that overlaps the upper by over 1/4 inch in certain places. The "wave" is not uniform in design. In NYRL 859090, the style of athletic shoe is a woman's low-cut shoe with a plastic upper and a unit-molded sole. The sole has a mud guard and a "wave" that overlaps the upper by over 1/4 inch in certain places. Again, the "wave" is not uniform in design. The sole also has a number of horizontal strips painted on.

ISSUE:

Does either style of athletic shoe possess a foxing-like band for tariff purposes?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Classification of merchandise under the HTSUSA is in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's), taken in order. GRI 1 provides that classification is determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes.

Subheading 6402.99.15, HTSUSA, provides for:

[o]ther footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics: [o]ther footwear: [o]ther: [h]aving uppers of which over 90 percent of the external surface area . . . is rubber or plastics (except footwear having a foxing or a foxing-like band applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper . . .): [o]ther.

Subheading 6402.99.70, HTSUSA, provides for:

[o]ther footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics: [o]ther footwear: [o]ther: [o]ther: [o]ther: [v]alued over $3 but not over $6.50/ pair.

In your letter of May 8, 1991, you claim that neither shoe possesses a foxing-like band and, therefore, both styles of shoe should be classifiable under subheading 6402.99.15, HTSUSA.

The "high point" rule is relevant to the determination of whether the subject athletic shoes have foxing-like bands. This rule has its origin in HQ 069886, dated June 22, 1983, published as C.S.D. 83-103, 17 Cust. Bull. 948 (1983). This ruling set forth an interpretation of the phrase "soles which overlap the upper other than at the toe or heel." It reads in pertinent part as follows:

It is our position that the phrase "soles which overlap the upper other than at the toe or heel" should be interpreted in light of the following criteria:

(1) The sole must extend over and cover part of the upper.

(2) In measuring overlap when the overlap is uniform, only one cut is to be made in the shoe, and that cut is to be made at the edge where the ball of the foot would normally rest. If the overlap is not uniform, the cut should be made at the point where the greatest amount of overlap occurs.

(3) A sole will be considered to overlap the upper if a vertical overlap of 1/4 inch or more exists from where the upper and the outsole initially meet measured on a vertical plane. If this vertical overlap is less than 1/4 inch, the sole is presumed not to overlap the upper.

"Briefly, this rule means that when the degree of vertical overlap on a unit-molded bottom varies, the amount of vertical overlap is considered to be at the highest point." (HQ 088510, April 29, 1991).

First, we note that no separate, unattached bottoms were submitted by the importer. Had that been the case, the "high point" rule would not have been relevant, because the unattached soles could easily have been measured for any overlap.

In NYRL 859090, it was stated that the athletic shoe does have a foxing-like band. We agree. The "wave" around the shoe is not uniform and, therefore, under the "high point" rule, the shoe must be cut where the "wave" is highest. On that shoe, the highest point of the "wave" easily overlaps the shoe by 1/4 inch. In NYRL 861783, it was stated that the athletic shoe does not have a foxing-like band. We disagree. The "wave" around that shoe is also not uniform, thereby invoking the "high point" rule. At the highest point of the "wave", the shoe was cut showing that the "wave" overlaps the upper by more than 1/4 inch.

Therefore, under the "high point" rule, the highest point of the "wave" on both types of shoes overlaps the uppers by more than 1/4 inch, giving the shoes foxing-like bands.

HOLDING:

Both types of athletic shoes are classifiable under subheading 6402.99.70, HTSUSA, which provides for: "[o]ther footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics: [o]ther footwear: [o]ther: [o]ther: [o]ther: [v]alued over $3 but not over $6.50/ pair." The general, column one rate of duty is 90 cents per pair plus 37.5 percent ad valorem.

This notice to you should be considered a modification of NYRL 861783 under 19 CFR 177.9(d). It is not to be applied retroactively to NYRL 861783 [19 CFR 177.9(d)] and will not, therefore, affect past transactions for the importation of your merchandise under that ruling. However, for the purposes of future transactions in merchandise of this type, NYRL 861783 will not be valid precedent. We recognize that pending transactions may be adversely affected by this modification, in that current contracts for importations arriving at a port subsequent to this decision will be classified pursuant to it. If such a situation arises, you may, at your discretion notify this office and apply for relief from the binding effects of this decision as may be warranted by the circumstances.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: