U.S. Customs and Border Protection · CROSS Database · 2 HTS codes referenced
Primary HTS Code
6404.19.35
$355.5M monthly imports
Compare All →
Court Cases
8 cases
CIT & Federal Circuit
Ruling Age
23 years
Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Census Bureau Trade Data, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-04-30 · Updates monthly
The tariff classification of men’s footwear from China.
NY I81416 May 21, 2002 CLA-2-64: RR: NC: TA: 347 I81416 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.19.35; 6405.20.90 Mr. Gordon C. Anderson C.H. Robinson International, Inc. 8967 Columbine Road Suite 400 Eden Prairie, MN 55347 RE: The tariff classification of men’s footwear from China. Dear Mr. Anderson: In your letter dated May 01, 2002, on behalf of your client Minnetonka Moccasin you requested a tariff classification ruling. The two submitted samples are described as follows: Style # 364 – A closed-toe, open-heel men’s slipper with an upper external surface area comprised of both textile and a approximate 1-inch suede strip encircling the lower portion of the footwear. The slipper also has a foam-padded insole and a rubber/plastic outer sole. You state that the outer sole is made of rubber and is entirely covered, including “the nubs”, with a knitted cotton fabric. Note 4 (b), Chapter 64, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), states that the constituent material of the outer sole shall be taken to be the material having the greatest surface area in contact with the ground, no account being taken of accessories or reinforcements such as spikes, bars, nails, protectors or similar attachments. The Explanatory Notes to Chapter 64 HTS, offer the term “when in use” to the external surface area of the outer sole determination. Visual examination of the outer sole indicates that it is composed of unit-molded rubber to which a textile material has been applied. However, the raised “nub” external surface area, which forms the greatest portion of the outer sole in contact with the ground, is not covered with any textile fabric. In this regard, the constituent material of the outer sole is predominantly rubber/plastic material. The applicable subheading for the style # 364 will be 6404.19.35, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics and uppers of textile materials: footwear of the slip-on type, that is held the foot without the use of laces or buckles or other fasteners, not having a foxing-like band: which is 10% or more by weight of rubber or plastics: other. The rate of duty will be 37.5% ad valorem. Style # 365 - A closed-toe, open-heel men’s slipper with textile upper, foam-padded insole and a rubber/plastic outer sole covered with textile material. Visual examination of the outer sole indicates that is composed of unit-molded rubber to which textile fabric has been adhered to the external surface in contact with the ground. This office regards the constituent material of the outer sole to be predominantly of textile material. The applicable subheading for the Style #365 will be 6405.20.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear in which the sole’s external surface is predominately other than rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather, in which the upper’s external surface is predominately textile materials, in which the upper, by weight, predominately consists of fibers other than vegetable fibers or wool, and which has a line of demarcation between the sole and the upper. The rate of duty will be 12.5% 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 646-733-3042. 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.