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 813094 - NY 813298 > NY 813131

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
NY 813131




August 28, 1995

CLA-2-64:S:N:N6:346 813131

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 6406.10.9040

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

RE: The tariff classification of footwear upper parts from Taiwan

Dear Mr. Maloney:

In your letter dated July 27, 1995, on behalf of your client, Deckers Outdoor Corp., you requested a classification ruling. We also received a 3 page letter from you dated August 9, 1995, concerning the distinction between this request and the one we ruled upon in NYRL 811605, issued to you on July 25, 1995. The significant differences between that request and this one are:
1. There are now 10 additional samples of lining-pads, added to the 2 samples submitted then, for a total of 12 samples this time. 2 are for the King Sling, 4 for the Pretty Rugged, and 6 for the Terra-Fi. However, the 12 are all just different sized pieces which incorporate the same materials as one of the 2 samples you submitted before. You have also included a sample of a finished Terra-Fi, marked TEVA in several locations. 2. You have now attached a weight breakdown for 11 of the pieces, which shows that the textile portion is between 19 and 34 percent of the total weight of each piece. 3. You now state that the `woven nylon and the EVA materials cost the same on a square yard basis.` Since it is evident that the nylon and the EVA have the same surface area and since some of the components also have another layer of non-woven textile, it is clear that the cost of the textile materials is equal to or greater than the cost of the plastics.
4. The country of origin of the pieces will now be Taiwan instead of China. This will clearly not change the 10 digit HTS classification.

We note:
1. The relatively soft-feeling, woven textile layer, unlike the non-woven textile layer present in some of the pieces, also adds directly to the comfort of the wearer`s foot since it is much less sticky and much more moisture absorbent than the EVA and preserves the life of the EVA layer both by adding a large amount of abrasion resistance as well by reinforcing the basic strength of the combined material. The woven textile, unlike the non-woven textile, will face the wearer`s foot. 2. We see no way we could rule that your samples are classifiable in HTS 6406.10.6000, as you propose, without first the revocation of NYRL 811605 by ORR since some of the items here are apparently identical in law to those. 3. You state that the samples were made by attaching textile layers to `pre-existing EVA plastic components`. 4. We agree that we did err in 811605 in referring to your citation of several HRL`s classifying items in HTS 6406.99.30. There are several HRL`s regarding textile-plastic insoles in 6406.99, but as you correctly point out, you cited only one of them, 950279. That ruling concerned a very different type of item in which the plastics were of a special, shock absorption type and were elaborately shaped to provide foot stability. A more comparable item, in which the plastic was likewise present only for simple cushioning, was decided on the basis of `the last to appear` in HRL 083832, 5-1-89. That principle has been determinative in several HRL`s regarding 6406.10, the heading in question here. Note, for example, HRL 955499, 2-13-94.

The applicable subheading for the 12 sample lining-pads will be 6406.10.9040, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for shoe uppers or the parts thereof, which are other than stiffeners, ornaments, braid, laces (incl. shoe laces), buttons, pompons, or other trimmings, or in general, most parts which could be used in articles besides footwear; which, as un-external parts of uppers, are not essentially only of leather or of rubber and/or plastics and contain textile materials that are substantially more essential than any other type of material, excluding the two just named; and in which, of the textile materials present, the man-made fibers weigh more than the cotton fibers, the wool and/or fine animal hair fibers or any other single type of fiber. The duty rate will be 8.6 percent ad valorem.

These items all fall within textile category designation 669. Based upon international textile trade agreements, products of Taiwan are presently subject to visa requirements and quota restraints.

The designated textile and apparel category may be subdivided into parts. If so, visa and quota requirements applicable to the subject merchandise may be affected. Since part categories are the result of international bilateral agreements which are subject to frequent renegotiations and changes, to obtain the most current information available, we suggest that you check, close to the time of shipment, the Status report On Current Import Quotas (Restraint Levels), an internal issuance of the U.S. Customs Service, which is available for inspection at your local Customs office.

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: