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 > 1993 NY Rulings > NY 871187 - NY 872065 > NY 871205

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
NY 871205





February 25, 1992

CLA-2-64:S:N:N3:D 347 871205

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 6403.91.90

Mr. Dale Watanabe
Nike, Inc.
One Bowerman Drive
Beaverton, OR 97005-6453

RE: The tariff classification of footwear from Taiwan

Dear Mr. Watanabe:

In your letter dated February 3, 1992, you requested a tariff classification ruling.

Style Women's Air Trainer Accel Mid, Product Code 174009 111 00 is a woman's over-the-ankle athletic shoe. It has a molded plastic sole and an upper with an external surface area (ESA) which you state is predominantly of leather when accessories or reinforcements are excluded. It has a textile tongue which is stitched to and integral with a textile back inner component which is lasted to the insole, giving the entire textile component a "bootie-like" appearance. Where the textile "bootie" appears between the eyelet stays we consider it to be "tongue" and do not include it in the ESA measurements; where it appears in the openings of and above the upper, we do. We consider this shoe to have a foxing-like band.

The applicable subheading for this shoe will be 6403.91.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for other footwear with outer soles of plastics and uppers of leather, covering the ankle, ..., for other persons. The rate of duty will be 10 percent ad valorem.

This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Section 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177).

A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction.

Sincerely,

Jean F. Maguire
Area Director

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: