HQ 086033: Ladies' "furskin" boots

Native CBP ruling rendition. Applicability is fact-specific; modification/revocation relationships and original publisher date are retained. Publisher sentinel year0001 means unknown date, not a historical legal adoption.

                            HQ 086033

                        February 15, 1990

CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 086033  WAW

CATEGORY:  Classification

TARIFF NO.:  6405.90.9000

Mr. Michael F. Watson
A.W. Fenton Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 360614
Columbus, Ohio  43236-0614

RE:  Ladies' "furskin" boots

Dear Mr. Watson:

     This is in response to your letter, dated October 18, 1989,
on behalf of your client Mrs. Sylvia Bery, concerning the tariff
classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States Annotated (HTSUSA) and the country of origin marking for
ladies' "furskin" boots, style number 1845, from Uruguay.  A
sample boot was submitted with your request.

FACTS:

     The submitted sample is a leather boot, style number 1845.
The boot is approximately 12 inches high.  The outer sole is made
of rubber and the external surface area of the upper is made of
"reversed" sheepskin.

ISSUE:

     (1) Does the merchandise at issue meet the country of origin
marking requirements?

     (2) Whether the sample boot is classifiable under subheading
6403.91.90, HTSUSA, which provides for footwear with uppers of
leather, or whether it is more properly classifiable under
subheading 6405.90.9000, HTSUSA, which provides for footwear with
uppers of other than leather, textiles, rubber, or plastics?

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Issue #1 - Country of Origin Marking

     Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C.
1304), requires that, unless excepted, every article of foreign
origin, imported into the United States 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 an ultimate purchaser in the United States the
English name of the country of origin of the article.  The
primary purpose of the country of origin marking statute is to
mark goods so that at the time of purchase the ultimate
purchaser may, by knowing where the goods were produced, be able
to buy or refuse to buy them, if such marking should influence
his will.  National Juice Products Association v. United States,
10 CIT 48, 628 F. Supp. 978 (1986), and United States v.
Friedlaender & Co., 27 CCPA 297, 302, C.A.D. 104 (1940).  The
regulations implementing the requirements and exceptions to 19
U.S.C. 1304 are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, 19
CFR Part 134.  Moreover, pursuant to 134.41(b) of the
Regulations, the ultimate purchaser in the United States must be
able to find the marking easily and read it without strain.  19
CFR 134.41(b).  Any marking that satisfies the criteria set
forth in the above regulations will be acceptable for marking
purposes.  In the instant case, since your merchandise has no
country of origin marking, we cannot comment on your method of
marking your merchandise at this time.

     Issue #2 - HTSUSA Classification

     The General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's) set forth the
manner in which merchandise is to be classified under the HTSUSA.
GRI 1 requires that classification be determined first according
to the terms of the headings of the tariff and any relative
section or chapter notes and, unless otherwise required,
according to the remaining GRI's, taken in order.

     Within the limits of Chapter 64, it is the constituent
material of the outer sole and the upper that determines tariff
classification under headings 6401 to 6405, HTSUSA.  The issue in
this case is whether the sample fur boot has an upper of leather
or of "furskin" for tariff purposes.  Note 4(a) to Chapter 64
provides:

     (a) The material of the upper shall be taken to be the
     constituent material having the greatest external
     surface area, no account being taken of accessories or
     reinforcements such as ankle patches, edging,
     ornamentation, buckles, tabs, eyelet stays or similar
     attachments.

     In determining whether the boot is made of "furskin" or
leather, we must also consider Chapter 43 which covers "Furskins
and Artificial Fur" as well as the accompanying Explanatory
Notes, which constitute the official interpretation of the tariff
at the international level.  Explanatory Note 1 to Chapter 43
states the following:

     Throughout the Nomenclature references to "furskins,"
     other than to raw furskins of heading No. 43.01, apply
     to hides or skins of all animals which have been tanned
     or dressed with the hair on.

     Furthermore, the Explanatory Notes to heading 4302 provide
further guidance in determining whether the hair on the boot is
considered to be "furskin" or leather.  The Explanatory Notes
state, in pertinent part, that:

     It is to be noted that skins with the hair on, of the
     kinds excluded from heading 43.01 (such as pony skins,
     calfskins, and sheepskins), fall in this heading if
     tanned or dressed.

     In the instant case, the upper of the boot is made of tanned
or dressed sheepskin with the hair still attached.  Customs has
previously determined in Headquarters Ruling Letter 085565, dated
December 12, 1989, that a slipper with an upper of reversed
sheepskin should be considered to have an upper of "furskin" and
not "leather" for tariff purposes.  Thus, this determination
precludes classification of this article under subheading
6403.91.90, HTSUSA, which provides for footwear with uppers of
"leather."  Accordingly, it is Customs position that the
sheepskin boot is more properly classifiable under subheading
6405.90.9000, HTSUSA, which provides for footwear in which the
upper's external surface is predominately other than leather,
composition leather, textile materials or rubber and/or plastics.

HOLDING:

     The sample merchandise is classifiable under subheading
6405.90.9000, HTSUSA.  The applicable rate of duty is 12.5% ad
valorem.

                                   Sincerely,




                                   John Durant, Director
                                   Commercial Rulings Division