Base
8853361993-05-07New YorkClassification

The tariff classification of footwear from China

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

Cross-Source Intelligence

Primary HTS Code

6402.99.15

$542.4M monthly imports

Compare All →

Court Cases

5 cases

CIT & Federal Circuit

Ruling Age

32 years

Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Census Bureau Trade Data, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-04-28 · Updates monthly

Summary

The tariff classification of footwear from China

Ruling Text

NY 885336 MAY 07, 1993 CLA-2-64:S:M:N8: 347 885336 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6402.99.15 Ms. Katy Huoter East CArGo U.S., Inc. 168-01 RockawaY Boulevard Jamaica, NY 11434 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Ms. Hunter: This classification decision under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) is being issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 1?7). DATE OF INQUIRY : April 15, 1993 ON BEHALF OF : Omni Footwear Inc. DESCRIPTION OF MERCHANDISE : Style M3766. A woman's low-heel, slip-on shoe with a plastic sole and a plastic upper which has four triangular, textile mesh inserts in the vamp. The textile comprises 5.4 percent of the external surface area of the upper by Customs Lab measurement. HTS PROVISION : Other footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics, of which over 90 percent of the external surface area is rubber or plastics, other. HTS SUBHEADING : 6402.99.15 RATE OF DUTY : 6 percent ad valorem. 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 6402.99.15

Other CBP classification decisions referencing the same tariff code.

Court of International Trade & Federal Circuit (5)

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