Flocked leather shoe; Revocation of Ruling Letter DD 867669; Subheading 6403.99.60; Subheading 6403.99.90; Chapter 64, Legal Note 4(a); HQ 088390

HQ 952092 July 20, 1992 CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 952092 EJD CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO: 6405.10.00 Mr. G. Gregory Threat Vice President Kimko International Inc. 13608 Midway Road, Suite 130 Dallas, Texas 75244 RE: Flocked leather shoe; Revocation of Ruling Letter DD 867669; Subheading 6403.99.60; Subheading 6403.99.90; Chapter 64, Legal Note 4(a); HQ 088390 Dear Mr. Threat: This is in reference to the ruling letter you received from the District Director of Customs in Chicago, Illinois, dated November 4, 1991 (DD 867669), concerning the tariff classification of a "flocked" leather shoe under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). In that ruling, which was in response to your letter of September 30, 1991, you were advised that the subject shoe was classified in either subheading 6403.99.60, HTSUS, or subheading 6403.99.90, HTSUS, depending on gender and value of the shoes actually imported. We have reviewed this ruling and determined it is in error and must be revoked. FACTS: The submitted sample is described as being a "flocked leather deck oxford". You stated that the upper has a "base" of PVC and that this base is sprayed with split leather to make what you think is a leather shoe. Upon examination, we have determined that the upper external surface is not a split leather, but a "flocking" of chopped up leather fibers sprayed onto a plastic resin. The sample has a rubber sole. In DD 867669, dated November 4, 1991, you were advised that this "flocked" leather shoe, style #391, was classifiable in subheading 6403.99.60, or in subheading 6403.99.90, HTSUS, depending on the gender and value of the shoes actually imported. In this ruling, it was noted that the "flocked" leather shoe has -2- no marking of any kind and we presumed that when the shoe is imported it will have a proper country of origin marking. ISSUE: What is the proper classification of the subject merchandise under the HTSUS? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Merchandise is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs). GRI 1 states in part that for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes, and provided the headings or notes do not require otherwise, according to GRIs 2 through 6, taken in order. Legal Note 4(a) to Chapter 64, HTSUS, states, in pertinent part: The material of the upper shall be taken to be the constituent material having the greatest external surface area, no account being taken of accessories or reinforcements such as ankle patches, edging, ornamentation, buckles, tabs, eyelet stays or similar attachments[.] In Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 088390, dated February 19, 1991, Customs stated that It has been our position that a piece of material which does not constitute a visible part of the external surface of the upper of a finished shoe should not be considered part of the external surface area of the upper. The upper of the sample has the appearance and the feel of roughed suede leather. However, the plastic base does not appear anywhere on the surface of the upper. * * * [T]he "external surface" of an upper is determined by the tariff status of the composite material (not layer) which is topmost on the upper. * * * Based upon an examination of the "flocked" leather shoe, it is our opinion that its upper should be considered to have an external surface of composition leather. In HQ 088390, Customs ruled that "composition leather" shoes are properly classifiable as "other footwear, with uppers of -3- leather or composition leather", under subheading 6405.10.00, HTSUS, with duty at the rate of 10 percent ad valorem. For the reasons stated above, it is now our position that the "flocked" leather shoe the subject of DD 867669 is properly classifiable under subheading 6405.10.00, HTSUS. HOLDING: The "flocked" leather shoe is classifiable under subheading 6405.10.00, HTSUS, as other footwear, with uppers of composition leather. The applicable Column 1 rate of duty is 10 percent ad valorem. This ruling adheres to the statements made in DD 867669 regarding the country of origin marking requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1304. DD 867669 (November 4, 1991) is revoked. This revocation is issued under section 177.9(d), Customs Regulations [19 CFR 177.9 (d)]. It is not applied retroactively to DD 867669 (19 CFR 177.9(d)(2)) and will not, therefore, affect past transactions for the importation of the merchandise under that ruling. However, for the purposes of future transactions in merchandise of this type, DD 867669 will not be valid precedent. We recognize that pending transactions may be adversely affected by this revocation, in that current contracts for importations arriving at a port subsequent to this decision will be classified pursuant to it. If such a situation arises, you may, at your discretion, notify this office and apply for relief from the binding effects of this decision as may be warranted by the circumstances. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division