HQ 952092: Flocked leather shoe; Revocation of Ruling Letter DD 867669; Subheading 6403.99.60; Subheading 6403.99.90; Chapter 64, Legal Note 4(a); HQ 088390

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 952092

                          July 20, 1992



CLA-2 CO:R:C:M  952092  EJD

CATEGORY:   Classification

TARIFF NO:  6405.10.00

Mr. G. Gregory Threat
Vice President
Kimko International Inc.
13608 Midway Road, Suite 130
Dallas, Texas  75244

RE:  Flocked leather shoe; Revocation of Ruling Letter DD 867669;
     Subheading 6403.99.60; Subheading 6403.99.90; Chapter 64,
     Legal Note 4(a); HQ 088390

Dear Mr. Threat:

     This is in reference to the ruling letter you received from
the District Director of Customs in Chicago, Illinois, dated
November 4, 1991 (DD 867669), concerning the tariff
classification of a "flocked" leather shoe under the Harmonized
Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).  In that ruling,
which was in response to your letter of September 30, 1991, you
were advised that the subject shoe was classified in either
subheading 6403.99.60, HTSUS, or subheading 6403.99.90, HTSUS,
depending on gender and value of the shoes actually imported.  We
have reviewed this ruling and determined it is in error and must
be revoked.


FACTS:

     The submitted sample is described as being a "flocked
leather deck oxford".  You stated that the upper has a "base" of
PVC and that this base is sprayed with split leather to make what
you think is a leather shoe.  Upon examination, we have
determined that the upper external surface is not a split
leather, but a "flocking" of chopped up leather fibers sprayed
onto a plastic resin.  The sample has a rubber sole.

     In DD 867669, dated November 4, 1991, you were advised that
this "flocked" leather shoe, style #391, was classifiable in
subheading 6403.99.60, or in subheading 6403.99.90, HTSUS,
depending on the gender and value of the shoes actually imported.
In this ruling, it was noted that the "flocked" leather shoe has

                               -2-

no marking of any kind and we presumed that when the shoe is
imported it will have a proper country of origin marking.


ISSUE:

     What is the proper classification of the subject merchandise
under the HTSUS?


LAW AND ANALYSIS:

     Merchandise is classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) in accordance with the
General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs).  GRI 1 states in part
that for legal purposes, classification shall be determined
according to the terms of the headings and any relative section
or chapter notes, and provided the headings or notes do not
require otherwise, according to GRIs 2 through 6, taken in order.

     Legal Note 4(a) to Chapter 64, HTSUS, states, in pertinent
part:

     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 Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 088390, dated February
19, 1991, Customs stated that

     It has been our position that a piece of material which does
     not constitute a visible part of the external surface of the
     upper of a finished shoe should not be considered part of
     the external surface area of the upper.  The upper of the
     sample has the appearance and the feel of roughed suede
     leather.  However, the plastic base does not appear anywhere
     on the surface of the upper.

     * * * [T]he "external surface" of an upper is determined by
     the tariff status of the composite material (not layer)
     which is topmost on the upper.  * * *

     Based upon an examination of the "flocked" leather shoe, it
is our opinion that its upper should be considered to have an
external surface of composition leather.

     In HQ 088390, Customs ruled that "composition leather" shoes
are properly classifiable as "other footwear, with uppers of

                               -3-

leather or composition leather", under subheading 6405.10.00,
HTSUS, with duty at the rate of 10 percent ad valorem.

     For the reasons stated above, it is now our position that
the "flocked" leather shoe the subject of DD 867669 is properly
classifiable under subheading 6405.10.00, HTSUS.


HOLDING:

     The "flocked" leather shoe is classifiable under subheading
6405.10.00, HTSUS, as other footwear, with uppers of composition
leather.  The applicable Column 1 rate of duty is 10 percent ad
valorem.

     This ruling adheres to the statements made in DD 867669
regarding the country of origin marking requirements of 19 U.S.C.
1304.

     DD 867669 (November 4, 1991) is revoked.  This revocation is
issued under section 177.9(d), Customs Regulations [19 CFR 177.9
(d)].  It is not applied retroactively to DD 867669 (19 CFR
177.9(d)(2)) and will not, therefore, affect past transactions
for the importation of the merchandise under that ruling.
However, for the purposes of future transactions in merchandise
of this type, DD 867669 will not be valid precedent.

     We recognize that pending transactions may be adversely
affected by this revocation, in that current contracts for
importations arriving at a port subsequent to this decision will
be classified pursuant to it.  If such a situation arises, you
may, at your discretion, notify this office and apply for relief
from the binding effects of this decision as may be warranted by
the circumstances.

                                   Sincerely,





                                   John Durant, Director
                                   Commercial Rulings Division