Base
M815262006-04-06New 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

6405.20.90

$9.9M monthly imports

Compare All →

Federal Register

1 doc

Related notices & rules

Court Cases

1 case

CIT & Federal Circuit

Ruling Age

20 years

1 related ruling

Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Census Bureau Trade Data, Federal Register, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-05-08 · Updates monthly

Summary

The tariff classification of footwear from China

Ruling Text

NY M81526 April 6, 2006 CLA-2-64:RR:NC:SP:247 M81526 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6405.20.90 Mr. John J. Kenney Reebok International Ltd. 1895 J.W. Foster Boulevard Canton, MA 02021 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Mr. Kenney: In your letter dated March 22, 2006 you requested a tariff classification ruling. The submitted sample, identified as “NFL Slipper, Style 162097,” is a men’s closed-toe, open-heel scuff-type slipper, which is intended exclusively for indoor use. The slipper has a brushed knit man-made textile material upper with an embroidered Chicago Cubs logo on the vamp, a foam rubber padded and textile faced insole, and a molded rubber/plastic outer sole to which a layer of textile fabric material has been permanently adhered to the outer surface. 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 sole of this indoor slipper indicates that it consists of a unit-molded rubber/plastic to which a thin layer of textile fabric has been permanently adhered to the external surface area in contact with the ground. We have determined, that the constituent material of the outer sole of this house slipper is textile. In your letter, you suggest that this slipper with a textile sole, which is intended for indoor use, should be classified in subheading 6404.19.35, HTS. This subheading would only be applicable if this open-heel slipper was described as having rubber and/or plastics as the constituent material of the outer sole with the greatest surface area in contact with the ground. The applicable subheading for the indoor use slipper, identified as “NFL Slipper, Style 162097,” will be 6405.20.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for other footwear, with uppers of textile material and outer soles of other than rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather; in which the upper, by weight, predominately consists of other than vegetable fibers or wool (linings, accessories or reinforcements not included). The rate of duty will be 12.5% ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. We are returning the sample as you 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 6405.20.90

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.