us-cbp-cross-rulings-hq-083444•HQ 083444: Reconsideration of HRL 080791 and HRL 080792 and classification of golf shoes
HQ 083444: Reconsideration of HRL 080791 and HRL 080792 and classification of golf shoes
us-cbp-cross-rulings-hq-083444HQ 083444: Reconsideration of HRL 080791 and HRL 080792 and classification of golf shoesGuidance
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 083444
July 07, 1989
CLA-2:CO:R:C:G 083444 SR
CATEGORY: Classification
TARIFF NO.: 6402.19.10; 700.56; 700.57
Mr. Robert D. Stang
Grunfeld, Desiderio, Lebowitz & Silverman
12 East 49th Street
New York, New York 10017
RE: Reconsideration of HRL 080791 and HRL 080792 and
classification of golf shoes
Dear Mr. Stang:
This is in reference to your letter dated January 11, 1989,
requesting reconsideration of HRL 080791 and HRL 080792 dated
December 2, 1987, and requesting tariff classification of golf
shoes under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
Annotated (HTSUSA).
FACTS:
The merchandise at issue is golf shoes. The shoes are made
of Clarino imitation leather. Some of the shoes are made by
cement construction, others are made by California construction.
The upper components of the shoe are lightly cemented before each
stitching stage to hold the components together during the
stitching stages. The uppers have a lining to provide comfort
and a rear quarter interlining to help stiffen the rear quarter
of the shoe. Because this shoe is waterproof the interlining is
plastic and the back side of the stitched seams are coated with
waterproofing cement. The outer sole of the shoe has spikes.
Style 58149 has a foxing-like band.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the shoes at issue are classifiable under item
700.53, Tariff Schedule of the United States (TSUS).
2. What is the classification under the HTSUSA?
-2-
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
ISSUE 1
HRL's 080791 and 080792 dated December 2, 1987, classified
the golf shoes at issue under item 700.53, TSUSA. Item 700.53,
TSUSA, provides for footwear (whether or not described elsewhere
in this subpart) which is over 50 percent by weight of rubber or
plastics or over 50 percent by weight of fibers and rubber or
plastics with at least 10 percent by weight being rubber or
plastics, hunting boots, galoshes, rainwear, and other footwear
designed to be worn over, or in lieu of, other footwear as a
protection against water, oil, grease, or chemicals or cold or
inclement weather, all the foregoing having soles and uppers of
which over 90 percent of the exterior surface area is rubber or
plastics (except footwear with uppers of nonmolded construction
formed by sewing the parts thereof together and having exposed on
the outer surface a substantial portion of functional stitching),
other.
In HRL 080791 and HRL 080792, the merchandise at issue was
classified under item 700.53, TSUS, because the shoes are both
stitched and glued. The reasoning was that if the shoes are both
stitched and glued then they are "more than" stitched and
therefore, the stitching cannot be considered to be functional
stitching. We now feel that just because stitching is backed by
glue it does not mean that the stitching cannot be functional.
It is the stitching in these shoes that hold the shoes together.
According to the importer the glue is added to the back of the
stitching in order to make the seams waterproof.
Under the TSUS, the merchandise at issue is classifiable
under item 700.56, except for style 58149 which has a foxing-like
band and is classifiable under item 700.57, TSUS.
ISSUE 2
Under the HTSUSA, the shoes at issue are classifiable under
6402.19.90, which provides for other footwear with outer soles
and uppers of rubber or plastics, sports footwear, other, valued
over $12 a pair. The shoes cannot be classified under subheading
6402.19.10, HTSUSA, which provides for sports footwear with
uppers over 90 percent of rubber or plastics (except footwear
designed to be worn over, or in lieu of other footwear as a
protection against water, oil, grease or chemicals or cold or
inclement weather), because they are waterproof and therefore fit
the exception.
-3-
HOLDING:
ISSUE 1
The golf shoes at issue are classified under item 700.56,
TSUS, as footwear which is over 50 percent by weight of rubber or
plastics or over 50 percent by weight of fibers and rubber or
plastics with at least 10 percent by weight being rubber or
plastics, other footwear having uppers of which over 90 percent
of the exterior surface area is rubber or plastics (except
footwear having foxing or a foxing-like band applied or molded at
the sole and overlapping the upper), other. The rate of duty is
6 percent ad valorem.
The golf shoe, style 58149, that has a foxing-like band is
classifiable under item 700.57, TSUS, which provides for footwear
which is over 50 percent by weight of fibers and rubber or
plastics with at least 10 percent by weight being rubber or
plastics, other footwear, other, footwear designed to be worn
over, or in lieu of, other footwear as a protection against
water, oil, grease, or chemicals or cold or inclement weather.
The rate of duty is 37.5 percent ad valorem. HRL 080791 and HRL
081792 are hereby revoked.
ISSUE 2
Under the HTSUSA, the merchandise at issue is classifiable
under subheading 6402.19.90, which provides for other footwear
with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics, sports
footwear, other, other, valued over $12 per pair. The rate of
duty is 20 percent ad valorem.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division
Vous vous demandez comment ce texte s’applique à votre situation ?
Consultation gratuite, sans engagement
Décrivez votre situation. Notre équipe vous recontactera par e-mail pour votre consultation.
Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude
Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.