Classification of a child's oxford shoe
Active· CBP ruling HQ 084413· Issued 1989-07-28
Ruling text
HQ 084413
July 28, 1989
CLA-2:CO:R:C:G 084413 SR
CATEGORY: Classification
TARIFF NO.: 6402.99.70
Ms. Yvonne Williams
BBC International Ltd.
19 West 34th Street
New York, N.Y. 10001
RE: Classification of a child's oxford shoe
Dear Ms. Williams:
This is in response to your letter dated April 27, 1989,
requesting the tariff classification of a child's PVC oxford
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
Annotated (HTSUSA). A sample produced in Taiwan was submitted.
FACTS:
The merchandise at issue is a child's oxford shoe. It has a
unit molded bottom cemented to a plastic upper. The upper has
plastic coated textile overlays on the toe, the outside front
quarter, and the eyelet stays. It is a tie shoe with 3 eyelets
per side. There are two decorative bows attached to the side of
the shoe.
ISSUE:
Whether the external surface of shoe at issue is over 90
percent of rubber or plastics, and classifiable under subheading
6402.99, HTSUSA.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Subheading 6402.99, HTSUSA, provides for 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 (except footwear
having a foxing or a foxing-like band and except footwear
-2-
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).
Under this provision the textile fabric, but not the loosely
attached bows, are included in the external surface area of the
shoe. The plastic coating on the textile material is not
sufficient to be considered plastic for purposes of measuring the
external surface area. Chapter 59 of the HTSUSA applies to
impregnated, coated, covered or laminated textile fabrics. Note
2(a)(1) to Chapter 59, HTSUSA, states that the subheading that
provides for textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or
laminated with plastics applies to fabrics other than those in
which the impregnation, coating or covering cannot be seen with
the naked eye, no account being taken of a resulting change of
color.
HRL 082993 dated November 25, 1988 dealt with fabric
raincoats with an application of plastics material. This ruling
stated:
It is our view that the wording of Note 2(a)(1) ("visible to
the naked eye") is a clear expression by the drafters of the
Harmonized System that a significant, if not substantial,
amount of material must be added to a fabric for it to be
considered "impregnated, coated, or covered."
Therefore, following the strict wording of Note 2(a)(1), for
a fabric to be considered "impregnated, coated, or covered"
within that requirement, the plastics material added to the
fabric must be visibly distinguishable from that fabric
without the use of magnification.
The plastic on the textile of the shoes at issue is not
substantial enough to be considered a plastic external surface
because it is not visible to the naked eye. Because the plastic
coated textile accessories that are included in the surface area
are not considered to be plastic, the shoe does not have an
exterior surface area of over 90 percent of rubber or plastics.
However, the exterior surface area is primarily of plastics and
the shoe will be considered to have an exterior surface area of
plastics.
-3-
HOLDING:
The merchandise at issue is classifiable under subheading
6402.99.70, HTSUSA, as other footwear with outer soles and uppers
of rubber or plastics, other footwear, valued over $3 but not
over $6.50 a pair. The rate of duty is 90 cents a pair plus 37.5
percent ad valorem.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division
6 cc A.D. New York Seaport
1 cc Durant
1 cc legal reference
cc the Grand Poobah
cc Mickey Mouse
cc the usual suspects
Source: rulings.cbp.gov — ruling 084413, retrieved 2026-10-12T05:18:34Z, republished verbatim. This digest is informational; only CBP issues binding rulings.