Base
I876612002-11-22New YorkClassification

The tariff classification of footwear from China.

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

Cross-Source Intelligence

Primary HTS Code

6402.99.18

$542.4M monthly imports

Compare All →

Court Cases

1 case

CIT & Federal Circuit

Ruling Age

23 years

2 related rulings

Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Census Bureau Trade Data, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-04-29 · Updates monthly

Summary

The tariff classification of footwear from China.

Ruling Text

NY I87661 November 22, 2002 CLA-2-64: RR: NC: TA: 347 I87661 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6402.99.18 Mr. James McDermott Charming Shoppes, Inc. 450 Winks Lane Bensalem, PA 19020 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China. Dear Mr. McDermott: In your letter dated November 05, 2002, you requested a tariff classification ruling. The two submitted samples are described as follows. Style # 103422 is an open-toe, open-heel, slip-on sandal. The upper consists of two approximately ½-inch rubber/plastic straps that are sewn together to form an Y-configured toe-thong strap, the ends of which penetrate and are cemented to a rubber/plastic outsole. Although this sandal looks very much like a “zori,” it is precluded from being classified as one because it does not have an upper which is a single molded piece of rubber/plastic and it also has a separately applied thin plastic sheeting-type material insole that has been cemented onto the top of the sandal’s footbed. Style # 103402 is an open-toe, open-heel, slip-on sandal. The upper consists of two approximately ½-inch rubber/plastic straps that are sewn together to form an Y-configured toe-thong strap, the ends of which penetrate and are cemented to a rubber/plastic outsole. This sandal also looks very much like a “zori” however, it is precluded from being classified as one because it does not have an upper which is a single molded piece of rubber/plastic, it has a separately applied thin plastic sheeting-type material insole that has been cemented onto the top of the sandal’s footbed and it also has a rubber/plastic outsole that is not approximately uniform in thickness. In TD 93-88 dated October 25, 1993 certain “Footwear Definitions” were published to provide some guidelines used by Customs to classify footwear under Chapter 64 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States. Briefly, some standard characteristics of a “zori” include an upper, which is a single molded piece of rubber/plastic; a rubber/plastic outsole of uniform thickness and the outsole must not have a separate insole. As previously pointed out, both of these sandals have characteristics that are not typical of a “zori” and therefore cannot be classified as such. The applicable subheading for this slip-on sandals, identified as Style # 103422 and Style #103402, will be 6402.99.18, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear, in which the upper’s external surface area is over 90% rubber or plastics (including any accessories or reinforcements); in which the outer sole’s external surface is predominately rubber and/or plastics; which is not “sports footwear”; which is not designed to be a protection against water, oil, or cold or inclement weather; which does not have a foxing-like band; and which does not cover the ankle. The rate of duty will be 6% ad valorem. We are returning the samples as requested. 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

Related Rulings for HTS 6402.99.18

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.