HQ 082804: Tariff classification of a men's shoe made in Taiwan

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 082804

                                   February 28, 1990


            CLA-2 CO:R:C:G  082804DFC

            CATEGORY: Classification

            TARIFF NO.: 6402.99.15

            Ms. Judy L. Cook
            Manager, Import Dept.
            Pagoda Trading Company, Inc.
            1950 Craig Road
            St. Louis, Missouri 63146

            RE: Tariff classification of a men's shoe made in Taiwan

            Dear Ms. Cook:

                 In a letter dated September 14, 1988, you asked us to
            reverse the result reached in New York Ruling Letter (NYRL)
            824380 dated August 18, 1987.  Specifically, New York Customs
            ruled that the men's shoe in issue was classifiable under the
            Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS), as other footwear
            which is over 50 percent by weight of rubber or plastics or
            over 50 percent by weight of fibers and rubber or plastics and
            having uppers of which over 90 percent of the exterior surface
            area is rubber or plastics with duty at the rate of 6 percent
            ad valorem.  However, with respect to classification under the
            Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated
            (HTSUSA), it was ruled that the shoe was classifiable under
            subheading 6404.19.35, HTSUSA, as other footwear with outer
            soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and
            uppers of textile material and dutiable at the rate of 37.5
            percent ad valorem.

            FACTS:

                 The sample which was the subject of NYRL 824380 was of
            latticework construction and had an upper of textile material
            which was plastic coated.  It also had a side buckle closure
            and a rubber sole.




















                                          -2-


                 Classification of the men's shoe under item 700.56, TSUS,
            was based on a finding that the plastic coating on the upper
            visibly and significantly affected the surface of the upper
            within the meaning of Schedule 7, Part 1, Subpart A,
            Headnote 3, TSUS, following the criteria set forth in
            T.D. 81-219.  Further, it was observed that the coating added
            significant stiffness to the fabric and imparted a slight
            luster.

                 You suggest that inasmuch as the shoe was considered to
            have an upper with an exterior surface area of plastic under
            the TSUS, it is difficult to understand how the material could
            be considered other than a plastic under the HTSUSA because it
            is a polyurethane.

            ISSUE:

                 Does the shoe have an upper the external surface area of
            which is over 90 percent plastics for the purposes of
            classification under the HTSUSA?

            LAW AND ANALYSIS:

                 Inasmuch as your request for reconsideration of
            NYRL 824380 was submitted more than a year after its issuance,
            there is no way for us to definitely confirm that the upper
            of the shoe ruled on is of the same material as the swatch
            submitted. Consequently, we cannot reverse that ruling.

                 However, we do agree with your position that the external
            surface area of the swatch submitted is a plastic rather than
            a textile material.  The imitation denim appearance is achieved
            by calendering a fairly thick plastic layer that is atop the
            slightly napped woven fabric substrate, and then printing the
            raised plastic areas with a blue paint or ink.  In the finished
            material, the appearance of the original, uncoated fabric (as
            seen in the selvedge) is completely hidden.  We agree that this
            is a textile material whose external surface is visibly coated
            with plastic.

                 Therefore, the men's shoe having an upper composed of the
            swatch submitted with your letter of September 14, 1988, is
            considered to have an upper the external surface area of which
            is over 90 percent plastics.

















                                          -3-


            HOLDING:

                 The Men's shoe is classifiable under subheading
            6402.99.15, HTSUSA, as other footwear with outer soles and
            uppers of rubber or plastics, other, having uppers of which
            over 90 percent of the external surface area (including any
            accessories or reinforcements such as those mentioned in
            note 4(a) to this chapter) is rubber or plastics, other.
            The applicable rate of duty is 6 percent ad valorem.

                                        Sincerely,




                                        John Durant, Director
                                        Commercial Rulings Division












































            6cc AD NY Seaport
            1cc James Sheridan NY Seaport
            1cc Legal Reference
            cahill library/peh
            082804