Base
N0916962010-02-03New YorkClassification

The tariff classification of cycling shoes from China

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

Cross-Source Intelligence

Primary HTS Code

6402.19.15

$53.4M monthly imports

Compare All →

Court Cases

1 case

CIT & Federal Circuit

Ruling Age

16 years

Data compiled from CBP CROSS Rulings, Census Bureau Trade Data, CourtListener (CIT/CAFC) · As of 2026-04-28 · Updates monthly

Summary

The tariff classification of cycling shoes from China

Ruling Text

N091696 February 3, 2010 CLA-2-64:OT:RR:NC:4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6402.19.15 Mr. Jerry A. Humphrey Performance, Inc. 144 Old Lystra Road Chapel Hill, NC 27517 RE: The tariff classification of cycling shoes from China Dear Mr. Humphrey: In your letters dated December 16, 2009, and your most recent submission received January 21, 2010, you requested a tariff classification ruling. A description, material content breakdown, and value information was submitted with your first letter. A sample accompanying your second correspondence was examined and is being returned to you as per your request. The Cavalo Stivale Bicycling Shoe is a below the ankle cycling shoe with a molded carbon fiber outer sole designed to accommodate cycling cleats to interface with bicycle pedals. The upper is composed of synthetic microfiber leather and a mesh covered tongue attached along one side. Two straps, each measuring approximately 1-inch wide, stretch across the top of the foot, pass through metal guides on one side of the upper, and back over the other side of the upper and secured with hook and loop closures. The shoe is also secured to the foot with a plastic and metal snap-buckle ratchet side strap, which can be adjusted to improve the fit. Examination of the sample found the upper, straps, and outer sole to be entirely covered with a visible layer of plastic. The external surface area of the upper is over 90 percent rubber or plastics, with all accessories and reinforcements included. The shoe does not have a foxing or a foxing-like band. The applicable subheading for the Cavalo Stivale Bicycling Shoe will be 6402.19.15, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics; sports footwear; other; having uppers of which over 90% of the external surface area (including any accessories or reinforcements) is rubber and/or plastics, not having a foxing or a foxing-like band, and not designed to be a protection against water, oil or cold or inclement weather, other. The rate of duty will be 5.1% 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/. The submitted sample is not marked with the country of origin. Therefore, if imported as is, it will not meet the country of origin marking requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1304. The footwear would be considered not legally marked under the provisions of 19 C.F.R. 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, in such manner as to indicate to the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. the English name of the country of origin of the article." 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 Stacey Kalkines at (646) 733-3042. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division

Related Rulings for HTS 6402.19.15

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.