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 > 2003 NY Rulings > NY J86384 - NY J86428 > NY J86424

Previous Ruling Next Ruling
NY J86424




July 8, 2003

CLA-2-64:RR:NC:TA:347 J86424

CATEGORY: CLASSIFICATION

TARIFF NO.: 6403.91.60 ; 6403.91.90

Ms. Stacey Nesseth
Red Wing Shoe Company, Inc.
314 Main Street
Red Wing, MN 55066-2337

RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China

Dear Ms. Nesseth:

In your letter dated June 20, 2003 you requested a tariff classification ruling.

The submitted half pair sample, identified as Style #869 of your “Irish Setter” footwear line, is a 9-inch high leather upper boot with a rubber/plastic outer sole, a lace closure with metal eyelets and speed hooks, and a waterproof “Gore-Tex” lining. You state that this rugged looking hiking boot features “Ultra Flex Opanka” hand stitched construction. It has two hang tags attached on it, one a plastic card to advertise its “Gor-Tex” feature and the other a miniature rubber sole on a chain to advertise the presence of a “special ground sensing sole.” The two hang tags will not be classified separately from the boots they are attached to and imported with.

Since the submitted boot is the type of footwear that is commonly worn by both sexes and no indication is provided that comparable styles are offered for women, the boot is considered “unisex” in sizes up to and including American men’s size 8.

The applicable subheading for the boot identified as “Irish Setter, Style #869”, in American men’s size 8.5 and larger, will be 6403.91.60, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear with uppers predominately of leather and outer soles of rubber, plastics or composition leather; which is not “sports footwear”; which covers the ankle; for men, youths and boys. The rate of duty will be 8.5% ad valorem. In sizes up to and including American men’s size 8, the applicable subheading will be 6403.91.90, HTS, which provides for footwear with upper’s predominately of leather and outer soles of rubber, plastics or composition leather; which is not “sports footwear”; which covers the ankle; for other persons. The rate of duty will be 10% ad valorem.

The marking statute, section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that, unless excepted, every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the U.S. shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly and permanently as the nature of the article (or its container) will permit, in such a manner as to indicate to the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. the English name of the country of origin of the article.

As provided in section 134.41(b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 134.41(b)), the country of origin marking is considered conspicuous if the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. is able to find the marking easily and read it without strain.

We note that the submitted sample boot is not marked “Made in China” in a manner that this office considers conspicuous and legible. The extreme small size and the placement of the words “Made in China” at the bottom of the sewn-on label that uses much larger size letters to convey other information about the boot is not as adequate as the nature of this footwear article will allow. We suggest that the letters marking this boot with the country of origin be increased to at least the same large size lettering as the other information contained on this label so that the boot can be considered legally marked under the marking statutes.

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 646-733-3042.

Sincerely,

Robert B. Swierupski
Director,

Previous Ruling Next Ruling

See also: