Footwear, protective; Athletic footwear; Off-Road footwear; T.D. 92-32; HRL 953882 Dear Mr. Pellegrini:
Active· CBP ruling HQ 955224· Issued 1994-03-25
Ruling text
HQ 955224
March 25, 1994
CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 955224 DFC
CATEGORY: Classification
TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.20
John B. Pellegrini, Esq.
Ross & Hardies
Park Avenue Tower
65 East 55th Street
New York, New York 10022-3219
RE: Footwear, protective; Athletic footwear; Off-Road
footwear; T.D. 92-32; HRL 953882
Dear Mr. Pellegrini:
In a letter dated October 14, 1993, on behalf of AVIA Group
International, Inc., you inquired as to the tariff classification
under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(HTSUS), of footwear which is expected to be produced in Korea.
A pre-production sample was submitted for examination.
FACTS:
The sample has not been assigned either a model number or
model name. This footwear is a man's over-the-ankle shoe with an
upper of textile with leather overlays, and a unit-molded bottom
of rubber/plastic. The unit-molded bottom, which contains a sole
pattern of raised ridges and "nipples," and the AVIA trade name,
overlaps the upper by one-quarter inch or more around most of the
perimeter of the shoe and constitutes a foxing-like band. You
advised us that the unit-molded bottom on the footwear which will
actually be imported will not have a clearly defined arch as
appears on the sample. The leather overlays, which are
accessories or reinforcements, cover more than 50% the external
surface area of the upper. The textile material which makes up
the external surface area of the upper is a man-made fiber sold
under the trade name "DARLEXX". The fabric is stretchable,
waterproof, windproof and breathable.
You claim that this footwear is similar to off-road footwear
and is properly classifiable under subheading 6404.11.20, HTSUS,
which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics,
leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials,
footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics, sports footwear,
tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the
like, having uppers of which over 50 percent of the external
surface area (including any leather accessories or reinforcements
such as those mentioned in note 4(a) to this chapter) is leather.
ISSUE:
Is this type of footwear considered "athletic footwear" for
purposes of classification under subheading 6404.11.20, HTSUS?
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
The term "tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes,
training shoes and the like" appearing in subheading 6404.11,
HTSUS, is defined by Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64, HTSUS,
as follows:
2. For the purposes of this chapter, the term "tennis
shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and
the like" covers athletic footwear other than sports
footwear (as defined in subheading note 1 above)
whether or not principally used for such athletic games
or purposes.
In Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 953882 dated September
24, 1993, Customs considered the issue of whether certain hiking
boots are classifiable as athletic footwear. It was claimed by
the inquirer that classification as athletic footwear would be
appropriate because the subject hiking boots shared many of the
characteristics of training shoes. Customs rejected this claim
noting that training shoes and the hiking boots have the
following conspicuous differences:
1. a "heel" stabilizer on the "in" side of the foot which
extends past the mid point of the shoe;
2. stitched and cemented on, molded rubber heel and toe
bumpers;
3. outersoles which are considerably heavier and stiffer
(although substantially less so than the usual hiker)
and which have a quite different design and spacing for
the "studs;" and
4. uppers which cover the ankle.
Further, in T.D. 92-32 (16 Cust. Bull. & Dec. No.16 at 4),
responding to the claim of importers that the hiking/backpacking
boot is classifiable as athletic footwear, Customs stated at page
18 the following:
In this instance the hiking/backpacking boot, although used
in the sport of backpacking, fails to qualify as athletic
footwear within subheading 6404.11 because it is not "like"
tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, and training
shoes. Specifically, hiking boots are heavier than the
listed exemplars of athletic footwear. This slows the
wearer's running speed substantially. All the exemplars are
used in sports which require fast footwork or extensive
running. Additionally, the exemplars are not constructed so
as to protect the foot against rough and rocky terrain as
are hiking boots. For these reasons we conclude that the
hiking/backpacking boot is not classifiable under subheading
6404.11, as claimed.
Following the criteria set forth in T.D. 92-32 and HRL
953882, you present the following reasons in support of your
claim that the instant footwear is classifiable as athletic
footwear:
1. The footwear is constructed along the same general
lines as athletic footwear. The only real difference
is the outersole which is somewhat heavier than some,
but not all, jogging shoes. It is no less flexible,
however. Also, the upper material is waterproof.
These differences are not significant and certainly do
not preclude classification as athletic footwear.
2 The footwear is lightweight; it is not heavier than
athletic footwear. Its weight will be approximately 13
ounces (men's size 9). This is consistent with the
weight of athletic footwear. Tennis shoes, basketball
shoes, running shoes and cross-training shoes have
weights in this range.
3. The subject footwear is designed for use in activities
which require fast footwork and extensive running,
specifically scrambling and trial running, although it
will be useful in other sports such as mountain biking,
hiking and light backpacking.
4. The subject footwear does not exhibit three of the four
characteristics cited in HRL 953882 as "conspicuous
differences from training shoes." The subject footwear
does not have a heel stabilizer which extends past the
mid-point of the shoe. The subject footwear does not
have stitched-on and cemented-on rubber heel and toe
bumpers. The outersoles of the subject footwear are
not considerably heavier or stiffer than those typical
of training shoes.
5. The subject footwear does exhibit the fourth criteria,
uppers which extend above the ankle. This is not a
significant difference from athletic footwear. It is a
fact that aerobic, crosstraining, basketball and tennis
shoes are sold in models which cover the ankle.
Accordingly, the fact that the subject footwear has
uppers which cover the ankle does not disqualify it
from classification as athletic footwear since many
exemplars of athletic footwear have uppers which cover
the ankle.
It is our observation that the subject footwear, despite
several similarities to a hiking boot, is not a hiking boot.
However, the question arises as to whether the instant footwear
is too different from tennis, basketball, gym or training shoes,
to be included as "like" them. These differences are listed as
follows:
The material of the sample's upper is "waterproof" and
"windproof;" unheard of characteristics for traditional
tennis, basketball and gym (TBG) shoes and an extreme rarity
for training shoes. However, it is an ordinary feature for
protective footwear and many hiking boots.
The "nippled" outer sole of the sample is completely unlike
the sole pattern for TGB shoes and most training shoes, and
still quite distinct from the closest training shoe
patterns. Similar patterns are seen on hiking boots.
The high-top is not unusual for basketball shoes, but it is
not a characteristic of traditional training shoes.
It is our opinion that the differences listed above are not
so substantial as to preclude the footwear in issue from being
considered as "like" tennis, basketball, gym or training shoes.
HOLDING:
Footwear represented by the sample with a modified unit-
molded bottom is dutiable at the rate of 10.5% ad valorem under
subheading 6404.11.20, HTSUS.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division
Source: rulings.cbp.gov — ruling 955224, retrieved 2026-10-12T05:28:37Z, republished verbatim. This digest is informational; only CBP issues binding rulings.