Base
E860181999-09-13New YorkClassification

The tariff classification of footwear made in China.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection · CROSS Database · 1 HTS code referenced

Cross-Source Intelligence

Primary HTS Code

6405.20.90

$9.9M monthly imports

Compare All →

Court Cases

1 case

CIT & Federal Circuit

Ruling Age

26 years

1 related ruling

Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Census Bureau Trade Data, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-05-01 · Updates monthly

Summary

The tariff classification of footwear made in China.

Ruling Text

NY E86018 September 13, 1999 CLA-2-64:RR:NC:TA:347 E86018 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO. 6405.20.90 Mr. Gerald B. Horn Soller, Shane & Horn 46 Trinity Place New York, NY 10006 RE: The tariff classification of footwear made in China. Dear Mr. Horn: In your letter dated August 12, 1999 you requested a reconsideration of New York Ruling D89353 of April 21, 1999 issued on behalf of Weisner Products, Inc. You believe that certain information, not provided at the time of the ruling request submission has resulted in an erroneous classification for this merchandise, described as a ladies fabric slipper. style 101901A. In that ruling, the merchandise was described as having an upper of textile material. The outer sole was described as being composed of a unit molded plastic sole to which a textile fabric has been adhered. The component material of the textile sole overlay was not identified. It appeared to be cotton or cotton blend fabric to which, what was presumed to be, rubber thread has been applied. This rubber thread provides traction and prevents slippage. The rubber thread was found to be the constituent material of the outer sole having the greatest surface area in contact with the ground. In this regard the footwear was classified as having an outer sole of rubber or plastics material. The sample footwear submitted with NY D89353 was retained by this office and appears to be different from the sample which you have submitted with this request. The sole on the original sample has a lined pattern with raised floral design. The non-slip characteristic of that sole appears to be the result of rubber/plastics fibers incorporated in the fabric. We disagree with your contention that NY D89353 resulted in an erroneous classification. We will therefore address your ruling request as a revised style 101901A. You now submit a sample of the sole which you state will be used in connection with the importation of this item, ladies fabric slipper, style 101901A. You have provided a lab report which identifies the component material of the textile fabric overlay used on the sole as 78.9 percent polyester and 21.1 percent cotton. This molded rubber/plastics sole has a raised dimple pattern with a outer layer of textile material encompassing the wear surface. The non-skid qualities of this sole appear to be the result of a portion of the molded rubber/plastics sole being exposed on the perimeter and instep area of the sole rather than by rubber thread incorporated into the fabric. We agree that the constituent material of the outer sole having the greatest surface area in contact with the ground for the revised style 101901A is textile. The applicable subheading for revised style 101901A will be 6405.20.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (HTS), which provides for other footwear, with uppers of textile material, other. The rate of duty will be 12.5 percent 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 this ruling letter 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 this ruling, contact National Import Specialist, Richard Foley at (212) 637-7089. Sincerely, Robert Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division

Related Rulings for HTS 6405.20.90

Other CBP classification decisions referencing the same tariff code.

Court of International Trade & Federal Circuit (1)

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