Base
E815541999-06-03New YorkClassification

The tariff classification of a skateboarding shoe from China, Indonesia, Thailand.

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

Cross-Source Intelligence

Primary HTS Code

6403.99.60

$438.9M monthly imports

Compare All →

Federal Register

3 docs

Related notices & rules

Court Cases

1 case

CIT & Federal Circuit

Ruling Age

26 years

Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Census Bureau Trade Data, Federal Register, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-05-04 · Updates monthly

Summary

The tariff classification of a skateboarding shoe from China, Indonesia, Thailand.

Ruling Text

NY E81554 June 3, 1999 CLA-2-64:RR:NC:TP:347 E81554 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6403.99.60, 6403.99.90 Mr. John B. Pellegrini Ross & Hardies Park Avenue Tower 65 East 55th Street New York, N.Y. 10022-3219 RE: The tariff classification of a skateboarding shoe from China, Indonesia, Thailand. Dear Mr. Pellegrini: In your letter dated May 3, 1999, written on behalf of your client, adidas America, Inc., you requested a tariff classification ruling. You have submitted a sample of what you state is a man’s skateboard shoe with a leather upper and rubber/plastic outsole, model “Lawsuit II.” The shoe has a lace-tie closure and features an identifying adidas logo label stitched on its tongue. You state that the footwear will be imported with a second pair of shoelaces. The second pair of laces will be in a different color from the pair laced in the shoe. You also state that the company does not market skate board shoes for women. The submitted shoe with extra pair of laces meets the definition of sets for Customs purposes. The Explanatory Notes for GRI 3(b) define sets as (1) consisting of at least two different articles which are classifiable in different headings, (2) articles put together to meet a particular need or carry out a specific activity, (3) packed for sale directly to users without repacking. For sets, classification is made according to the component, or components taken together, which gives the set as a whole its essential character. The shoes and accompanying laces form a set, with the shoes imparting the essential character. Since you state that the company does not market skate board shoes for women, we consider this type of footwear to be commonly worn by both sexes. If a woman’s alternative is not provided to complement the submitted “men’s” model, we consider this type of shoe to be “unisex” in sizes up to and including American men’s size 8. In this regard, the applicable subheading for the shoes, and accompanying laces, up to and including American men’s size 8 will be 6403.99.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear with leather uppers and plastic and/or rubber soles, not covering the ankle, for other persons, valued over $2.50 per pair. The rate of duty will be 10% ad valorem. The applicable subheading for the shoes, and accompanying laces, for American men’s sizes 8.5 and above will be 6403.99.60, HTS, which provides for footwear with leather uppers and plastic and/or rubber soles, not covering the ankle, for men, youths and boys. The rate of duty will be 8.5% ad valorem. The laces require a visa in textile category 369 if composed of cotton, a visa in textile category 669 if composed of other materials. 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 212-637-7089. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division

Related Rulings for HTS 6403.99.60

Other CBP classification decisions referencing the same tariff code.

Federal Register (3)

Trade notices, proposed rules, and final rules related to the tariff codes in this ruling.

Court of International Trade & Federal Circuit (1)

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