HQ 087171: Men's Bowling Shoes

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 087171

                         October 5, 1990

CLA-2 CO:R:C:G  087171   ALS

CATEGORY:  Classification

TARIFF NO.:  6405.90.9000

Mr. Peter Jay Baskin
Attorney at Law
Sharretts, Paley, Carter and Blauvelt, P.C.
67 Broad Street
New York, New York 10004

RE:  Men's Bowling Shoes

Dear Mr. Baskin:

     This is in reference to your letter of May 14, 1990,
requesting a tariff classification ruling on women's bowling
shoes.  A pair of men's bowling shoes was submitted as a sample.
You telephonically confirmed that the ruling request covers men's
bowling shoes and not women's bowling shoes as stated in your
letter.

FACTS:

     The merchandise in question consists of a pair of men's
bowling shoes whose external surface is almost completely
composed of plastic material.  The outer sole of each shoe is
composed of plastic and leather.  In accordance with their design
to be used by a right handed bowler, the left shoe of the pair
has a large piece of split leather stitched over the sole thereof
and the right shoe of the pair has a small piece of split leather
covering the tip of the toe area.  The outer soles of both shoes
incorporates a plastic heel lift.

ISSUE:

     Are the bowling shoes considered footwear with outer soles
and uppers of rubber or plastics for tariff classification
purposes?



                              - 2 -

LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States Annotated (HTSUSA) is governed by the General Rules
of Interpretation (GRI's).  GRI 1 provides that classification is
to be determined in accordance with the terms and headings and
any relevant section or chapter notes.  If GRI 1 fails to
classify the goods, and if the heading and legal notes do not
otherwise require, the remaining GRI's may be applied, taken in
order.

     In considering this matter we noted that the shoes, although
a pair, have different outer soles in accord with their intended
use.  Counsel proffers for consideration the proposition that the
external surfaces of the two different outer soles should be
combined to determine whether the external surface of the outer
soles are predominantly "of leather" or predominantly "of rubber
or plastics".

     Legal Note 4(b) to Chapter 64, HTSUSA, provides that:

     (b)  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.

     General Note (c) to Chapter 64 of the Explanatory Notes,
which represent the official interpretation of the Harmonized
System at the international level, indicates that the
determination of which material has the greatest surface area in
contact with the ground should be made when the footwear is in
use.

     The above notes do not seem to address the tariff
classification issue when the outer sole of each shoe of a pair
is not the same.  Counsel in its original ruling request, a
conference of September 18, 1990, and a further submission of
October 1, 1990, suggests that the surface area of the pair of
bowling shoes should be combined and considered as a unit.  While
we agree that the bowling shoes are similar in form or function
and are matched or associated and are, therefore a pair of shoes
(see The American College Dictionary, Second College Edition,
1982), that two shoes of a pair are normally classified in the
                              - 3 -

same heading and that counsel's suggestion seems quite logical,
we find no basis in the HTSUSA for so combining articles.  We
note the language of Heading 6402, HTSUSA, which counsel suggest
as the proper heading, speaks of outer soles of a certain
material.  Since both shoes of a pair, including some bowling
shoes, normally have the same type of outer soles, we believe it
is reasonable to believe that the drafters of the Harmonized
System had that concept in mind when drafting the language of
Heading 6402, HTSUSA.  We believe that there is a clear
presumption in such language that each shoe of a pair
classifiable thereunder is the same as the other.  Certainly the
subject shoes, while forming a pair, in toto, have definite
separate identities, one has an outer sole for sliding and the
other does not.

     In reviewing the headings eligible for classification of the
shoes, we noted that the bowling shoes, whether considered in the
manner suggested by counsel or if each shoe is separately
considered, would be classified under Chapter 64, HTSUSA.  In
accordance with GRI 6 we next referred to any subheadings and any
related subheading notes.  In reviewing the subheadings eligible
for classification, we noted subheading 6402.99.15, HTSUSA, as
suggested by counsel, relative to other footwear with outer soles
and uppers of rubber or plastics, and subheading 6405.90.9000,
HTSUSA, relative to other footwear.

     Since the goods are classifiable under two or more
subheadings because they consist of more than one material or
substance, they are, pursuant to GRI 2(b), to be classified
according to the principles of GRI 3, we next referred to that
GRI.  Since the two possible subheadings are equally specific, we
found that the shoes are not classifiable in accordance with GRI
3(a).  Although the shoes are clearly "composite goods...made up
of different materials" or "goods put up in sets for retail sale"
pursuant to GRI 3(b), that GRI is not applicable since neither
shoe gives the pair it essential character.  We, therefore,
turned to GRI 3(c) which provides:

     (c)  When goods cannot be classified by reference to 3(a) or
          3(b), they shall be classified under the heading which
          occurs last in numerical order among those which
          equally merit consideration.

     Based thereon, we believe the bowling shoes should be
classified under the provisions for other footwear rather than
the provisions for other footwear with outer soles and uppers of
rubber or plastics.

                              - 4 -

HOLDING:

     The bowling shoes are classifiable under subheading
6405.90.9000, HTSUSA, as other footwear, other, other.  The
applicable rate of duty is at the general rate of 12.5 percent ad
valorem.

                              Sincerely,



                              John Durant, Director
                              Commercial Rulings Division

6cc:  A.D. New York Seaport
1cc:  John Durant
1cc:  NIS J. Sheridan, NYSeaport


























087171    Bowling shoes
ALSARASKY 9/13/90   10/3/90