Base
8916391993-11-05New YorkClassificationRevoked

iled without a copy, this ruling should be broughtto the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction.

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

Cross-Source Intelligence

Primary HTS Code

6402.99.30

$542.4M monthly imports

Compare All →

Court Cases

2 cases

CIT & Federal Circuit

Ruling Age

32 years

Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Census Bureau Trade Data, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-04-29 · Updates monthly

Summary

iled without a copy, this ruling should be broughtto the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction.

Ruling Text

DD 891639 November 5, 1993 CLA-2-64:HS:CS FNIS:D19 891639 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF No.: 6402.99.30 Maureen Shoule J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co., Inc. 15 Park Row New York, N.Y. 10038 Dear Ms. Shoule: In your letter dated October 2 0 1993, you request classification confirmation on a ladies polyurethane (plastics) wedge slide sandal with a EVA plastics sole. The shoe has open toes and open heels. The style number for the shoe is 9700. The shoe is made in China and will be imported through the ports of New York, New Orleans, Los Angeles, and Long Beach, for F.W. Woolworth Co., New York, N.Y. The applicable subheading for the shoe is 6402.99.30, other footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics. The rate of duty is 37.5% ad valorem. 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 should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If the documents are filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction. Sincerely, Gene Lowrance Acting District Director, Portland, Or.

Ruling History

Revoked by956385

Related Rulings for HTS 6402.99.30

Other CBP classification decisions referencing the same tariff code.

Court of International Trade & Federal Circuit (2)

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