The tariff classification of footwear from China
Issued February 24, 2012 by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Tariff classification
HTS codes: 6405.20.90
Headings: 6405
Product description
, Inc. The submitted half pair samples which you identify as styles “MUKLUK 002” and “MUKLUK 004,” are women’s textile knit “slipper socks” with separately applied textile outer soles (which cover the interior “sock” portion of the bottoms) and acrylic fiber textile uppers which cover the ankle and extend approximately to the mid-calf.
CBP rationale
The applicable subheading for the slipper socks identified as styles “MUKLUK 002” and “MUKLUK 004” will be 6405.20.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for other footwear, with uppers of textile materials, other.
Full text
N202563 February 24, 2012 CLA-2-64:OT:RR:NC:N4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6405.20.90 Mr. Stephen M. Zelman Stephen M. Zelman & Associates 888 Seventh Avenue, Suite 4500 New York, NY 10106 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Mr. Zelman:In your letter dated January 30, 2012 you requested a tariff classification ruling for two ladies textile slipper socks on behalf of your client, Fownes Brothers & Co., Inc. The submitted half pair samples which you identify as styles “MUKLUK 002” and “MUKLUK 004,” are women’s textile knit “slipper socks” with separately applied textile outer soles (which cover the interior “sock” portion of the bottoms) and acrylic fiber textile uppers which cover the ankle and extend approximately to the mid-calf. You state that the only difference between the two styles is that the outer sole of style MUKLUK 004 has a number of plastic triangular “traction patterns” and the word “animal” (also in plastic) applied to it. You contend that this plastic makes up less than 50% of the outer sole material in contact with the ground. We agree with this contention. The applicable subheading for the slipper socks identified as styles “MUKLUK 002” and “MUKLUK 004” will be 6405.20.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for other footwear, with uppers of textile materials, other. The general rate of duty will be 12.5 percent ad valorem.The submitted samples are not marked with the country of origin. Therefore, if imported as is, they will not meet the country of origin marking requirements of 19 U.S.C. 1304. Accordingly, the footwear would be considered not legally marked under the provisions of 19 C.F.R. 134.11 which states, “every article of foreign origin (or its container) imported into the U.S. 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 the ultimate purchaser in the U.S. the English name of the country of origin of the article.” This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177).A copy of the ruling or the control number indicated above should be provided with the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If you have any questions regarding the ruling, contact National Import Specialist Stacey Kalkines at 646-733-3042.Sincerely, Thomas J. Russo Director National Commodity Specialist Division
More rulings on the same tariff codes
Request for reconsideration of NY N028015; tariff classification of a “hand warmer” and a “foot warmer”
The tariff classification of footwear from China
The tariff classification of footwear from China
The tariff classification of footwear from China
The tariff classification of footwear from China
The tariff classification of footwear from China
The tariff classification of articles of apparel and footwear from China
The tariff classification of footwear from China
The tariff classification of footwear from China
The tariff classification of footwear from China
Searching CBP rulings the smart way
TariffLens semantically searches all 200,000+ CBP rulings, surfaces the ones that actually match your product, and builds defensible classifications backed by ruling citations.
Book a demo →