Base
8152551995-10-19New YorkClassification

The tariff classification of table tennis shoes from Taiwan and China.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection · CROSS Database · 1 HTS code referenced

Cross-Source Intelligence

Primary HTS Code

6404.11.90

$333.3M monthly imports

Compare All →

Federal Register

1 doc

Related notices & rules

Court Cases

2 cases

CIT & Federal Circuit

Ruling Age

30 years

Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Census Bureau Trade Data, Federal Register, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-05-03 · Updates monthly

Summary

The tariff classification of table tennis shoes from Taiwan and China.

Ruling Text

NY 815255 October 19, 1995 CLA-2-64:R:N3:346 815255 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.90 Ms. Ann Morris Southern Overseas P.O. Box 3970 Norfolk, VA 23514 RE: The tariff classification of table tennis shoes from Taiwan and China. Dear Ms. Morris: In your letter dated September 25, 1995, on behalf of the Martin Kilpatrick Table Tennis Co., you requested a tariff classification ruling. The submitted samples are two athletic type table tennis shoes. Style name "Radial Thunder" is a low-top athletic shoe with a predominately textile upper that has plastic and non-woven textile reinforcements/accessories at the sides, over the toes, around the heel and covering the eyelet stays. The shoe also has a seven eyelet lace closure, a rubber outer sole and a fully encircling rubber foxing tape. It is clearly marked "Made in Taiwan" on the heel seat and you state that it is " valued per importer" at $13.00 per pair. We presume that this "value" represents the price to be paid by the importer to the seller for this shoe at the time when actual importations will be made into the U.S. The applicable subheading for this shoe, style name "Radial Thunder", will be 6404.11.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear, in which the upper's external surface is predominately textile materials (note that an accessory or reinforcement on top of another material is not part of the upper's external surface, but the material hidden underneath is); in which the outer sole's external surface is predominately rubber and/or plastics: which is a tennis, basketball, gym, or training(jogging) shoe or the like; in which the upper's external surface is still 50% or less leather even after every leather accessory and reinforcement is included as part of the upper's external surface; and which is valued over $12.00 per pair. The duty rate will be 20 percent ad valorem. Your inquiry does not provide enough information for us to give a classification ruling on the other submitted sample shoe, style name "Quickstep". This athletic style shoe has a predominately textile upper which has extensive stitched-on leather and plastic accessories and/or reinforcements, an EVA midsole and an overlapping rubber/plastic outer sole. Your request for a classification ruling on this shoe should include an accurate external surface area percentage measurement of the upper, with only the leather accessories and reinforcements included in the upper's external surface. We also note, that this sample shoe is not legally marked. Putting the country of origin marking "Made in China" on the underside of a sewn-on textile label indicating shoe size, is not acceptable marking because it is not in a location as "conspicuous" as the nature of this article allows. This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Section 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 James Sheridan at 212-466-5889. Sincerely, Roger J. Silvestri Director National Commodity Specialist Division

Related Rulings for HTS 6404.11.90

Other CBP classification decisions referencing the same tariff code.

Federal Register (1)

Trade notices, proposed rules, and final rules related to the tariff codes in this ruling.

Court of International Trade & Federal Circuit (2)

CIT and CAFC court opinions related to the tariff classifications in this ruling.