U.S. Customs and Border Protection · CROSS Database · 1 HTS code referenced
Primary HTS Code
6403.99.90
$438.9M monthly imports
Compare All →
Court Cases
1 case
CIT & Federal Circuit
Ruling Age
23 years
Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Census Bureau Trade Data, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-05-01 · Updates monthly
Classification of footwear.
PD J81074 February 13, 2003 CLA-2-64:D11:PDJ81074 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6403.99.90 Mr. Charles G. Hartill Capital Transportation 147-217 175th Street Jamaica, New York 11434 Re: Classification of footwear. Dear Mr. Hartill: In your letter, dated February 3, 2003, on behalf of Ballet Makers, Inc., of Totowa, New Jersey, you requested a tariff classification ruling for a shoe to be made in Brazil. The submitted sample, style CG02, is a women’s dance shoe with a 100% leather upper and a rubber and/or plastic outer sole. The applicable subheading for the leather upper shoe will be 6403.99.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, HTS, which provides for footwear, in which the upper’s external surface is predominately leather; in which the outer sole is rubber and/or plastics; which is other than “sports footwear”; in which the top of the upper does not cover the wearer’s ankle; in which the sole is attached to the upper by other than welt stitched construction; which is worn by other than men, youths and boys; which is valued over $2.50 per pair. The rate of duty will be ten percent 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 Field National Import Specialist Anthony Cataldo at 617-565-6126 or National Import Specialist Richard Foley at 646-733-3042. Sincerely, Nora E. Ehrlich Port Director, Boston
Other CBP classification decisions referencing the same tariff code.
CIT and CAFC court opinions related to the tariff classifications in this ruling.