U.S. Customs and Border Protection · CROSS Database · 1 HTS code referenced
Primary HTS Code
6402.99.30
$496.4M monthly imports
Compare All →
Court Cases
2 cases
CIT & Federal Circuit
Ruling Age
28 years
Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Census Bureau Trade Data, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-05-01 · Updates monthly
The tariff classification of a woman's sandal from China
NY B87656 July 21, 1997 CLA-2-64:RR:NC:TP:347 B87656 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6402.99.30 Alan Safdeye United Footwear Group 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 7706 New York, NY 10018 RE: The tariff classification of a woman's sandal from China Dear Mr. Safdeye: In your letter dated July 15, 1997, you requested a tariff classification ruling. You have submitted a sample of a woman's open heel/open toe slip-on sandal made on a base of jute material, style HE-009. You state that the upper is 98% polyurethane with a rubber outer sole. The upper's interwoven plastic strips are held together by thread which is visible along the surface of the upper and therefore included in our measurement of surface area material. As a result, the upper is not over 90% rubber/plastic. The applicable subheading for the shoe will be 6402.99.30, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastic, not covering the ankle, having uppers of which not over 90% of the external surface area is rubber or plastic, footwear with open toes or heels. The rate of duty will be 37.5% ad valorem. This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 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 Richard Foley at 212-466-5890. Sincerely, Paul K. Schwartz Chief, Textiles & Apparel Branch National Commodity Specialist Division
Other CBP classification decisions referencing the same tariff code.
CIT and CAFC court opinions related to the tariff classifications in this ruling.