Base
8505421990-04-11New YorkClassification

The tariff classification of footwear from Korea.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection · CROSS Database · 2 HTS codes referenced

Cross-Source Intelligence

Primary HTS Code

6402.91.90

Compare All →

Federal Register

2 docs

Related notices & rules

Court Cases

3 cases

CIT & Federal Circuit

Ruling Age

36 years

Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Federal Register, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-05-17 · Updates real-time

Summary

The tariff classification of footwear from Korea.

Ruling Text

NY 850542 April 11,1990 CLA-2-64:S:N:N3D:347 850542 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6402.91.90, 6402.99.15 Mr. George D. Lorenze Jr. American Import and Forwarding Services 5777 W. Century Boulevard, Suite 860 Los Angeles, CA 90045 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from Korea. Dear Mr. Lorenze: In your letter dated March 14, 1990, on behalf of your client, Asics Tiger Corporation, you requested a tariff classification ruling. You submitted four samples of athletic-type shoes with plastic uppers and unit molded multicolored rubber/plastic bottoms. Styles Gel-Spotlyte (AY01), Gel-Volley Cross Hi (BY- 72), and GT-Lyte (SY-55) are high-tops with lace closures. In addition to the laces Style BY-72 has a permanently attached hook-and-loop fastener across the instep and style SY-55 has a removable nylon web strap with a plastic snap buckle which is laced through the top of the tongue and upper. This style comes with a second strap and buckle in matching/contrasting colors which can not be laced into the shoe simultaneously with the first strap. The unit molded bottoms of these three styles have mudguards or extended mudguards, lateral stabilizers, and heel stabilizers, all of which overlap the uppers by more than 1/4 inch around 78 to 100 percent of the periphery of the uppers. These three styles are considered to have foxing-like bands. Style TY75 is a low cut jogger-type shoe with an EVA midsole and a unit molded outsole which overlaps the upper only at the toe bumper. The applicable subheading for Styles AY01, BY-72, and SY-55 will be 6402.91.90 (if valued over $12 per pair), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for other footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics, covering the ankle, having a foxing-like band. The rate of duty will be 20 percent ad valorem. The applicable subheading for Style TY75 will be 6402.99.15, HTS, which provides for other footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics, not covering the ankle, not having a foxing-like band. The rate of duty will be 6 percent ad valorem. The additional nylon web strap and plastic snap buckle imported with style SY-55 can not be worn simultaneously with the strap that is already laced into the shoe. Therefore, the additional unit is considered to be a set with the shoes. At this time, the additional strap is not subject to any quota or visa restrictions under international trade agreements. However, due to the changeable nature of these agreements you are advised to contact your local Customs office prior to importation of this merchandise to determine the current status of any restraints or requirements. Note that the country of origin tags on all four samples are hidden or obscured and imported shoes so marked will be considered to be not legally marked. 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 New York Seaport

Related Rulings for HTS 6402.91.90

Other CBP classification decisions referencing the same tariff code.

Federal Register (2)

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

Court of International Trade & Federal Circuit (3)

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