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 > 1992 HQ Rulings > HQ 0950334 - HQ 0950434 > HQ 0950403

Previous Ruling Next Ruling


HQ 950403


December 17, 1991

CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 950403 DFC

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF No.: 6404.19.15

Robert D. Stang, Esq.
Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman Counselors at Law
12 East 49th Street
New York, NY 10017

RE: Boot, hiking; Footwear, protective; Laces, shoe; Accessories or Reinforcements; 087430

Dear Mr. Stang:

In a letter dated August 27, 1991, on behalf of L.A. Gear, Inc., you inquired as to the tariff classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA) of a hiking boot which will be manufactured in a number of countries including China. A sample was submitted for examination.

FACTS:

The sample men's footwear, style no. 4464, has a leather and denim textile upper designed to cover the ankle and a rubber and plastic outersole. A black rubber foxing strip that does not overlap the outersole encircles the bottom of the upper. You state that the leather in the upper accounts for well over 50 percent of the external surface area of the upper.

You state that this footwear will be imported and sold with two sets of color coordinated shoe laces threaded through the upper and designed to be worn simultaneously. Thus, the shoe and shoelaces are mutually complementary components that form a whole which would not be offered for sale in separate parts.

You claim that leather constitutes the constituent material having the greatest external surface of the uppers involved which requires that the hiking boot be classifiable under subheading 6403.91.60, HTSUSA, as footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of leather, other footwear, covering the ankle, other, for men, youths and boys. The applicable rate of duty for this provision is 8.5 percent ad valorem.

In the alternative, you suggest classification under subheading 6404.19.15, HTSUSA, as footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials, other, footwear having uppers of which over 50 percent of the external surface area (including any leather accessories or reinforcements such as those mentioned in note 4(a) to this chapter) is leather. The applicable rate of duty for this provision is 10.5 percent ad valorem.

ISSUE:

1. What is the constituent material of the upper of style no. 4464 and under what subheading is it classified?

2. Are the shoe laces composite goods classifiable with the boot?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

Classification of goods under the HTSUSA is governed by the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's). GRI 1 provides that "classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes, and, provided such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to "[the remaining GRI's taken in order]." In other words classification is governed first by the terms of the headings of the tariff and any relative section or chapter notes.

Note 4(a) to Chapter 64, HTSUSA, reads as follows:

4. Subject to note 3 to this chapter:

(a) The material of the upper shall be taken to be the constituent material having the greatest external surface area, no account being taken of accessories or reinforcements such as ankle patches, edging, ornamentation, buckles, tabs, eyelet stays or similar attachments.

You maintain that leather is the constituent material of the upper having the greatest external surface area for the following reasons.

1. The leather portion of the upper is more than an "accessory" or "reinforcement" because the leather portion of the upper is not similar to any of the exemplars in Note 4(a). Specifically, items such as ankle patches, edging, buckles or tabs cover only a minor portion of the upper, as opposed to the leather component of the footwear, which
account for the vast majority of that footwear's upper.

2. Leather imparts the essential character of the footwear. It is believed that at the point of sale a consumer would identify this style as a shoe with a leather upper with additional textile features.

3. In of itself the leather component is readily identifiable as a footwear upper. This is in distinction to the exemplars in Note 4(a), which in and of themselves cannot be identified as a footwear upper.

4. The leather does not merely reinforce or decorate the textile underlay. Rather, the textile underlay and the leather overlay are integral components of the upper, both of which are required to complete the upper.

5. In HRL 087430 dated October 22, 1990, Customs ruled that a shoe with a leather toe cap, a leather vamp, leather quarters and heel counter, a padded vinyl collar, a vinyl underlay and a fabric lining with foam rubber padding was classified as leather footwear in subheading 6403.91.60, HTSUSA. The footwear in issue appears to be nearly identical to the footwear involved in HRL 087430 except that the leather upper of style no. 4464 exposes a narrow fabric "U" strip around the vamp. Thus HRL 087430 supports classification of the instant footwear as leather footwear.

It is our position that the term "accessories and reinforcements", although not fully defined, includes any additional material added to an otherwise completed upper as long as the underlying material is a plausible upper material, even if not the best material. We note that denim textile which is clearly a plausible upper material covers the whole foot and a substantial portion of it is exposed on the finished boot. Consequently, when the leather "accessories" or "reinforcements" are removed the boot has an upper of textile which requires its classification under Heading 6404, HTSUS.

Style no.4464 is not nearly identical to the basketball shoe ruled on in HRL 087430. In that case the plausible upper material, which was vinyl, was completely covered by leather. This is not the case here. It should also be noted that the vinyl collar was a separate piece rather than a continuation of the vinyl underlay which constituted the plausible upper material.

We agree that, within Heading 6404, HTSUSA, subheading 6404.19, HTSUSA, is applicable. We agree that this footwear is not "Sports footwear" provided for in subheading 6404.11.20, HTSUSA, because it has "studs" on the outer sole, not "cleats." Further, as a "heeled" hiking boot, albeit a relatively lightweight one, it is not "like" a tennis, basketball, gym or training shoe.

We also agree classification under subheading 6404.19.15, HTSUSA, is appropriate. An examination of the boot leads us to the conclusion that it is not protective footwear (footwear designed to be worn over, or in lieu of other footwear as a protection against water, oil, grease or chemicals or cold or inclement weather) in subheading 6404.19.20, HTSUSA. Although there is some foam padding (especially in the rear of the upper) which would provide some protection against cold weather and the rubber foxing would provide some protection against wet conditions, the protection provided is minimal.

With respect to the shoe laces, they are obviously classified together with the boots. You assert that as composite goods the second pair of shoe laces does not require a separate visa. In HRL 086029 dated February 15, 1990, Customs ruled that where multiple pairs of laces are imported with one pair of athletic-type shoes which can accommodate, through styling and use of eyelets, all of the pairs of laces simultaneously, and those pairs of laces are of differing colors and/or designs, absent evidence that the laces are intended to be used separately, a presumption is raised that the multiple pairs of laces are intended to be worn simultaneously. The one pair of shoes plus all pairs of laces is therefore considered a single article, or where these laces are not laced into the eyelets, a single article presented unassembled under GRI 2(a).

In this instance the two sets of laces are color coordinated and it is plausible that a wearer would use both laces with the boot at one time. Consequently, based on the result reached in HRL 086029 the laces are considered composite goods with the hiking boot and are not subject to visa requirements.

HOLDING:

The hiking boot is dutiable at the rate of 10.5 percent ad valorem under subheading 6404.19.15,HTSUSA.

Both shoe laces, whether or not laced into the boot, are considered composite goods with the boots and, therefore are not subject to visa requirements.

Sincerely,

John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division


Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: