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 > 2000 NY Rulings > NY G81390 - NY G81435 > NY G81422

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
NY G81422




September 28, 2000

CLA-2-64:RR:NC:TA:347 G81422

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 6404.19.35 ; 6402.99.30

Mr. Robert Silverman
Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman LLP 245 Park Ave.
New York, NY 10167-3397

RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China

Dear Mr. Silverman:

In your letter dated September 8, 2000, on behalf of your client Dynasty Footwear, Ltd., you requested a tariff classification ruling.

The submitted two half pair samples are both low-top casual shoes, with closed toes, open heels and laced-up vamps that feature two different colored shoe laces, laced into their eyelets simultaneously.

Style #CC549 is a white slip-on type shoe, which you state is sneaker-like, and which has a textile canvas upper with a laced vamp and an open heel. This slip-on shoe is laced with two different color laces, one white and one blue, each of which is inserted through the eyelets. The shoe also has an approximately 1-1/2 inch high, rubber/plastic platform-type bottom/sole. We do not consider this shoe to be athletic footwear because it has an open heel and it is a slip-on.

Style #L90342 is a child’s open heeled, closed toe shoe, which you are calling a sneaker. It has a stitched together upper consisting of materials with an external surface area that may be over 90% rubber and/or plastics with all accessories and reinforcements included. The upper, however, does have two pairs of narrow, strap-like textile eyelets and stays, which based on visual measurements, since no actual measurements were provided, we will presume account for more than 10% of the upper’s surface area. In addition, the shoe has a molded rubber/plastic bottom with a wavelike sidewall which overlaps the upper by as much as ¼-inch or more around most of the shoe’s lower perimeter. We consider this shoe to have a foxing-like band. The shoe also has a laced vamp and an adjustable 1-inch wide behind the heel strap with a hook-and-loop side buckle closure. This shoe is also laced with two different colored laces, one blue and one a dark blue with pink stripes, each of which is inserted through the eyelets.

In your inquiry, you request that this ruling decision not only provide the tariff classification for the submitted samples, but that it also confirm the informal advise provided to you by this office, that each of these sample shoes with the two different color laces would be classified as a single unit composite good for tariff purposes. To this end, you have provided a copy of HQ ruling 086029, dated February 15, 1990, which has previously addressed this issue and determined that a visa is not required to enter the additional shoe laces that will qualify together with a shoe as a single unit of merchandise under certain circumstances.

Headquarters ruling letter, HQ 086029 (February 15, 1990) found that it was the position of the Customs Service that where multiple pairs of laces are imported with a 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 different colors and/or designs, absent evidence that the laces are intended to be used separately, it can be presumed that the multiple pairs of laces are intended to be worn simultaneously. The single pair of shoes plus all pairs of laces was therefore considered a single article (or where these laces are not laced into the eyelets, a single article unassembled) and no visa was required. However, this ruling does also note, that where multiple pairs of laces of like colors and/or designs are imported, laced or not laced, with one pair of shoes, a presumption is raised that these additional pairs of laces are to be for replacement purposes. Such additional laces would then only form a set with an already completed pair of shoes with laces, and under those circumstances, they would trigger the requirements of a visa.

Therefore, the applicable subheading for the sample item, your shoe Style #CC549 laced simultaneously with two different colored laces, will be 6404.19.35, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear, in which the upper’s external surface is predominately textile materials (excluding accessories and reinforcements); in which the outer sole’s external surface is predominately rubber and/or plastics; which is not “athletic footwear”; which is not designed to be a protection against water, oil, or cold or inclement weather; which has open toes or open heels; and which is 10% or more by weight of rubber and/or plastics. The rate of duty will be 37.5% ad valorem.

The applicable subheading for the sample item, your shoe Style #L90342 also laced simultaneously with two different colored laces, will be 6402.99.30, HTS, which provides for footwear, in which both the upper’s and outer sole’s external surface is predominately rubber and/or plastics; which is not “sports footwear”; which does not cover the ankle; which has open toes or open heels; in which the upper’s external surface area does not measure over 90% rubber or plastics (including any accessories or reinforcements) and/or which has a foxing or foxing-like band applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper; and which is not designed to be a protection against water, oil, or cold or inclement weather. The rate of duty will be 37.5% ad valorem.

We are returning the samples as you requested.

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

A copy of the ruling or the control number indicated above should be provided with the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If you have any questions regarding the ruling, contact National Import Specialist Richard Foley at 212-637-7089.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Swierupski
Director,

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: