Base
F871592000-05-24New YorkClassification

The tariff classification of women’s footwear from China.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection · CROSS Database · 3 HTS codes referenced

Cross-Source Intelligence

Primary HTS Code

6403.91.90

$165.6M monthly imports

Compare All →

Federal Register

1 doc

Related notices & rules

Court Cases

1 case

CIT & Federal Circuit

Ruling Age

25 years

Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Census Bureau Trade Data, Federal Register, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-05-03 · Updates monthly

Summary

The tariff classification of women’s footwear from China.

Ruling Text

NY F87159 May 24, 2000 CLA-2-64:RR:NC:TP:347 F87159 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6403.91.90, 6403.99.90, 6404.19.35 Ms. Jennifer M. Horner Talbots 175 Beal Street Hingham, MA 02043 RE: The tariff classification of women’s footwear from China. Dear Ms. Horner: In your letter dated May 11, 2000, you requested a tariff classification ruling. You have submitted three styles of women’s shoes. You state that style “Sierra” has an upper made up of both leather and textile, with a rubber outer sole. Visual examination shows that leather makes up the greatest external surface area of the upper (ESAU). This shoe also features a closed toe and heel, covers the ankle, and has a lace-tie closure. The applicable subheading for style “Sierra” will be 6403.91.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear with leather uppers and plastic and/or rubber soles, covering the ankle, for other persons. The rate of duty will be 10% ad valorem. You state that style “Cameron” has an upper made up of leather with a rubber outer sole. The applicable subheading for style “Cameron” 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. You state that style “Cameron 2” is made up of a wool upper, with a closed toe, and a rubber outer sole. The design of this shoe allows approximately ½ inch of upper material to cover the back portion at the heel. Due to this design feature, it is our observation that the wearer’s heel remains open and we would classify this shoe as having an open heel. The applicable subheading for “Cameron 2” will be 6404.19.35, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear in which the upper external surface area is predominately of textile material, in which the outer sole’s external surface is predominately of rubber and/or plastics, which is not “athletic” footwear, footwear with open toes or open heels, which is 10% or more by weight of rubber or plastics. The rate of duty will be 37.5% ad valorem. We also note that the submitted shoes are not marked with the country of origin. Therefore, if imported as is, the samples submitted will not meet the country of origin marking requirement of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Accordingly, the shoes would be considered not legally marked under the provisions of 19 C.F.R 134.11 which states “every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the U.S. shall be marked in a conspicuous place as legibly, indelibly, and permanently as the nature of the article (or container) will permit.” 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 6403.91.90

Other CBP classification decisions referencing the same tariff code.

Federal Register (1)

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.