U.S. Customs and Border Protection · CROSS Database · 1 HTS code referenced
Primary HTS Code
6403.99.90
$438.9M monthly imports
Compare All →
Federal Register
3 docs
Related notices & rules
Court Cases
1 case
CIT & Federal Circuit
Ruling Age
23 years
Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Census Bureau Trade Data, Federal Register, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-05-08 · Updates monthly
The tariff classification of two sneaker type shoes from China
PD I81417 May 23, 2002 CLA-2-64:CO:CH:JJB D10 I81417 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6403.99.90 R. Patrick Doyle The Stride Rite Corporation 191 Spring Street P. O. Box 9191 Lexington, MA 02420-9191 RE: The tariff classification of two sneaker type shoes from China Dear Mr. Doyle: In your letter dated May 3, 2002, you requested a classification ruling of two sneaker type shoes from China. You included a sample of each shoe, designated as style numbers JH22474 and JH22477. You also included some descriptive information along with a laboratory report for each style. Both are sneaker styles of shoes, below the wearer’s ankle. Both have soles of rubber or plastic. Both have uppers whose external surface areas are combinations of leather, textile, and plastic materials. The laboratory report for style number JH22474 shows a breakdown for the upper’s external surface area as 52.27% leather, 25.60% textile, and 22.13% rubber/plastic. The laboratory report for style number JH22477 shows a breakdown of the upper’s external surface area as 52.42% leather, 26.18% textile, and 21.40% rubber/plastic. Although this office might disagree with some of the rubber/plastic components included in these figures, it is apparent that the predominant material of the external surface areas of the uppers of both shoes is leather. According to information you provided in this ruling request, both shoes are for persons other than men, youths, or boys and both will be valued at more than $2.50 per pair. You suggested a classification for both shoes of 6403.99.90 and we agree. The applicable subheading for both sample shoes, designated as style numbers JH22474 and JH 22477, will be 6403.99.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of leather; other footwear; not covering the ankle; other than footwear made on a base or platform of wood; other than welt footwear; for persons other than men, youths and boys; valued over $2.50 per pair. The duty rate will be 10%. Neither of these sample shoes is marked with the country of origin. Therefore, if imported as is, neither shoe will meet the country of origin marking requirements of 19 USC 1304. Accordingly, both of these sample shoes will be considered not legally marked under the provisions of 19 CFR 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." Both sample shoes are being returned. 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 should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction. If you have any questions regarding this ruling, contact Field National Import Specialist James Bruton at 312/983-1132 or National Import Specialist Richard Foley at 646/733-3042. Sincerely, Robyn Dessaure Port Director
Other CBP classification decisions referencing the same tariff code.
Trade notices, proposed rules, and final rules related to the tariff codes in this ruling.
Request for comments and notice of public hearing.
Notice·Effective 2002-01-23
Notice of determinations and action; notice of proposed action; request for written comments; invitation to participate in public hearing.·Effective 2001-08-02
CIT and CAFC court opinions related to the tariff classifications in this ruling.