U.S. Customs and Border Protection · CROSS Database · 1 HTS code referenced
Primary HTS Code
6402.99.18
$496.4M monthly imports
Compare All →
Court Cases
1 case
CIT & Federal Circuit
Ruling Age
26 years
Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Census Bureau Trade Data, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-05-02 · Updates monthly
The tariff classification of a child’s sandal from China.
NY E86683 September 30, 1999 CLA-2-64:RR:NC:TP:347 E86683 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6402.99.18 Mr. John J. Kenney Reebok International Ltd. 25 Littlefield Street Avon, MA 02322 RE: The tariff classification of a child’s sandal from China. Dear Mr. Kenney: In your letter dated August 27, 1999, you requested a tariff classification ruling. You have submitted a sample of a child’s sandal, style “Jubilee, PGSC #72-53237,” in size 13. The “Jubilee” sandal, in white/purple/grape, has a rubber/plastic upper and a molded rubber/plastic sole with an open toe and open heel, and two hook and loop closures on the upper. There is some visible textile piping outlining the back heel area, which you state measures 8.52%. The applicable subheading for the sandal 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 plastics, 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 212-637-7089. 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.