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 > 1995 NY Rulings > NY 806478 - NY 806642 > NY 806605

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
NY 806605




March 1, 1995

CLA-2-64:S:N:N8:346 806605

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 9802.00.5010 ; 6404.19.35

Mr. William J. Maloney
Rode & Qualey
295 Madison Ave.
New York, N.Y. 10017

RE: The tariff classification of a sandal from Costa Rica; CBI-2

Dear Mr. Maloney:

In your letter dated February 1, 1995, on behalf of your client, Deckers Outdoor Corporation, you requested a tariff classification ruling for a sandal you identify as "Teva All- Terrain". This sandal, you state, will be manufactured in Costa Rica from materials and component parts that are of U.S. origin.

You have enclosed a sample of the finished sandal as it will be imported into the U.S. The upper is comprised of various 3/4 inch wide textile straps which pass through and around three triangular shaped plastic fittings and are held to the foot as well as around the ankle by several hook and loop closure straps. The sandal has a 1/2 inch thick, two layered EVA rubber/plastic bottom, with a small rubber/plastic arch cookie wedge insert between the layers. The various component parts of a disassembled sandal were also submitted.

In your letter, you state that the "fabric" from which the straps of this sandal's textile upper are made will be woven in Costa Rica from U.S. origin yarn. The woven fabric will be cut to shape and combined with "plastic fittings" and "hook and loop tape" components of U.S. origin to form the sandal's upper. Additionally, you state that the "topsole" layer of the sandal's rubber/plastic bottom is cut to shape in the U.S. from EVA plastic sheet imported from the Philippines. The cut to shape "outersole" layer of EVA plastic and the "arch cookie" component parts, you affirm, are entirely U.S. made. The assembly of the sole components and the combination of the sole components with the textile upper parts to make the finished sandal will all be done in Costa Rica. All the fabricated components and materials will be shipped directly from the USA to Costa Rica without entering the commerce of any other country.

Therefore, this sandal will be classified in subheading 9802.00.5010, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), free of duty, as an article, which was returned to the U.S. after having been exported for repairs or alterations, not made pursuant to a warranty, and which met the conditions of U.S. note 2-b to Subchapter II of Chapter 98. We assume that you will be able to supply the port of entry with whatever documents or other evidence it deems necessary to confirm that those conditions have, in fact, been met. Customs Headquarters has issued no directives or guidelines so it would likely be useful to discuss the documentation and evidence required with the Customs personnel in each district in which you may make entry.

Items classified in 9802.00.5010 do not need to have any country of origin marking when imported into the U.S.

Per Statistical Note 2 to Subchapter II, you must split out on the Customs entry, "the dutiable value , i.e., the value of the foreign processing" and assign to it the classification that would ordinarily apply in the absence of US note 2-b to that Subchapter. Note that in this context, there is never any duty actually payable on this "dutiable value". The classification that would ordinarily apply to this footwear item is 6404.19.35, HTS, based on the samples and the information you have supplied.

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: