U.S. Customs and Border Protection · CROSS Database · 1 HTS code referenced
Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-05-16 · Updates real-time
The tariff classification of a girl's plastic shoe from China
NY C80266 October 28, 1997 CLA-2-64:RR:NC:TP:347 C80266 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6402.99.18 Mr. Erik D. Smithweiss Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silvermann LLP 245 Park Avenue New York, N.Y. 10167 RE: The tariff classification of a girl's plastic shoe from China Dear Mr. Smithweiss: In your letter dated October 1, 1997, on behalf of your client, E.S. Originals, you requested a tariff classification ruling. You have submitted a sample of a girl's dress shoe, style N-3800-2, made up of a plastic upper and plastic outer sole. In addition, a decorative textile bow is attached to the upper with adhesive and several stitches. The bow constitutes a loosely attached appurtenance that is disregarded for purposes of tariff classification. In this regard, the external surface area of the upper, including any accessories and reinforcements, is over 90% plastic. The applicable subheading for the shoe will be 6402.99.18, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastic, having uppers of which over 90% of the external surface area (including accessories and reinforcements such as those mentioned in Note 4(a) to this chapter) is rubber or plastics, not covering the ankle. The rate of duty will be 6% 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, Robert B. Swierupski Director, 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.