Protest 1001-92-102593; Footwear; Slippers, ladies'; Weight breakdown
Active· CBP ruling HQ 954184· Issued 1993-11-12
Ruling text
HQ 954184
November 12, 1993
CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 954184 DFC
CATEGORY: Classification
TARIFF NO.: 6404.20.40; 6404.20.60
Area Director of Customs
JFK Airport Area
Building 178
Jamaica, New York 11430
RE: Protest 1001-92-102593; Footwear; Slippers, ladies';
Weight breakdown
Dear Sir:
The following is our decision regarding the request for
further review of Protest 1001-92-102593 dated April 8, 1992,
concerning the tariff classification of ladies' slippers
manufactured in either the Philippines or Taiwan.
FACTS:
The footwear involved consists of three styles of ladies'
slippers. Style 8888 is constructed of a velour upper (comprised
of a 75% cotton/25% polyester blend, pigsuede outer sole, foam
and spun poly batting cushioning and an elastic securing band.
Style 6699 is constructed of a 2 ply nylon spandex upper
(comprised of a 90% nylon/10% spandex blend), pigsuede outer
sole, a 56% cotton/44% polyester inner sole, foam and spun poly
batting cushioning and an elastic securing band. Style 2590 is
constructed of a textile upper (consisting of either a 76%
polyester/12% cotton/12% rayon blend or a 88% polyester/12%
cotton blend), pigsuede outer sole, 100% polyester inner sole,
foam and spun poly batting cushioning and an elastic securing
band.
The entries covering these slippers were liquidated on
January 10, 1992, at the rate of 37.5% ad valorem under
subheading 6404.20.60, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States (HTSUS). The protest was timely filed on April 8, 1992.
The protestant asserts that all three styles are properly
classifiable under subheading 6404.20.40, HTSUS, with duty at the
rate of 10% ad valorem.
-2-
ISSUE:
Are these slippers less than 10% by weight of rubber or
plastics or not over 50% by weight of textile materials and
rubber or plastics?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The competing provisions are as follows:
6404 Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics,
leather or composition leather and uppers of
textile materials:
* * * *
6404.20 Footwear with outer soles of leather or
composition leather:
Not over 50 percent by weight of rubber
or plastics and not over 50 percent by
weight of textile materials and rubber
or plastics with at least 10 percent by
weight being rubber or plastics:
* * * *
6404.20.40 valued over $2.50/pair. . . 10%
6404.20.60 Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37.5%
Samples of all three styles were analyzed by the Customs
laboratory. The results of the analyses set forth in Customs
Laboratory Report no. 2-92-11593-003 dated August 14, 1992, are
as follows:
Style 6699 consists by weight of 83% textile, 13.8% leather,
and 3.2% rubber or plastics.
Style 8888 consists by weight of 82.2% textile, 13.1%
leather and 4.7% rubber or plastics.
Style 2590 consists of 77% textile, 12.6% leather and 10.4%
rubber or plastics.
Noting that styles 6699 and 8888 are less than 10% by weight
of rubber or plastics, it is our position that they are properly
classifiable as claimed under subheading 6404.20.40, HTSUS.
-3-
Classification under subheading 6404.20.60, HTSUS, is
appropriate for style 2590, noting that it is over 10% by weight
of rubber and plastics and over 50% by weight of textile
materials and rubber or plastics.
The protestant asserts that style 2590 must be the same as
style 6699 and 8888 (i.e., containing less that 10% by weight of
rubber or plastics), even though he has not presented any
evidence that the result reached by the Customs laboratory is
erroneous. As support for this assertion, protestant argues that
due to the manufacturer's quality control procedures the quantity
of rubber or plastics contained in the slipper would, in each
instance, be less than 10% of the total weight of the article.
Further, protestant has submitted a copy of United States Testing
Company's laboratory Report dated April 8, 1992, which shows that
style 2590 contained less than 10% by weight of rubber or
plastics.
It appears unlikely to us that the manufacturer's quality
control can guarantee that the weight of the plastic or rubber in
the footwear involved will always contain significantly less than
10% by weight of rubber or plastics material. Further, we note
that the United States Testing Company"s Laboratory Report does
not identify the samples tested with any of the entries covered
by the protest. Also, that analysis was performed more than four
months before Customs conducted its analyses of the footwear.
Protestant has suggested that additional samples of style
2590 be submitted for a weight analyses and that a determination
of whether rubber or plastics constitute over 10% of the total
weight of the shoe would depend on the average weight of the
samples. This suggestion is unacceptable because due to the
passage of time the origin of the additional samples submitted
would be difficult to ascertain.
In addition to the Customs laboratory report showing
different weight breakdowns, we note that the description on the
invoice for style 2590 includes "100 percent Foam," unlike the
description (on CE K59-xxxxxxxx) for styles 6699 and 8888.
HOLDING:
Styles 6699 and 8888 are dutiable at the rate of 10% ad
valorem under subheading 6404.20.40, HTSUS.
Style 2590 is dutiable at the rate of 37.5% ad valorem under
subheading 6404.20.60, HTSUS.
-4-
The protest should be allowed in part for styles 6699 and
8888 and denied in part for style 2590. In accordance with
Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive 099 3550, dated August 4,
1993, Subject: Revised Protest Directive, this decision, together
with the Customs Form 19, should be mailed by your office to the
protestant, through counsel, no later than 60 days from the date
of this letter. Any reliquidation of the entry in accordance
with the decision must be accomplished prior to mailing of the
decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision the Office of
Regulations and Rulings will take steps to make the decision
available to Customs personnel via the Customs Rulings Module in
ACS and the public via the Diskette Subscription Service, Lexis,
Freedom of Information Act and other public access channels.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division
Source: rulings.cbp.gov — ruling 954184, retrieved 2026-10-12T05:27:55Z, republished verbatim. This digest is informational; only CBP issues binding rulings.