What's the HS Code for "Basketball Shoes"?

HQ 953882 September 24, 1993 CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 953882 DFC CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.19; 6404.11.20 Peter Jay Baskin, Esq. Sharretts, Paley, Carter & Blauvelt. P.C. Sixty-seven Broad Street New York, N.Y. 10004 RE: Boots, hiking; Athletic footwear; T.D. 92-32; Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64 Dear Mr Baskin: In a letter dated March 11, 1993, to the Regional Commissioner of Customs in New York, on behalf of Hi-Tec Sports USA, Inc., you inquired as to the tariff classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), of three hiking boots produced in Korea. Your letter, together with the samples and descriptive literature which were submitted for examination, were forwarded to this office for a response. FACTS: The samples are designated as styles GT Max, GT Rugged and the Yazoo. The GT Max consists of a nylon mesh upper covered extensively with full grain nubuk overlays, a phylon midsole, and an all-terrain carbon rubber outer sole. The footwear is an over-the-ankle style, features stitched toe bumpers, and weighs 14.5 ounces in a men's size 8. THe GT Rugged is comprised of a nylon upper that is covered extensively with nubuk overlays, an EVA midsole, and a carbon rubber, wrap-around outsole. The footwear is an over-the-ankle style, features stitched toe bumpers, and weighs 13.5 ounces in a men's size 8. The Yazoo consists of a nylon mesh upper, which is more than 50 percent covered with suede overlays, an EVA midsole, and a high traction carbon rubber outer sole, It is a "high-top" style of footwear featuring thickly padded ankles, moisture wicking lining, stitched toe bumpers, and trail stabilizers. It weighs 16 ounces in a men's size 8. -2- You claim that these hiking shoes are classifiable under subheading 6404.11.20, HTSUS, as footwear with outer soles or 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. The applicable rate of duty for this provision is 10.5% ad valorem. ISSUE: Does the language of Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64, HTSUS, expand the coverage of subheading 6404.11, HTSUS Are the hiking boots considered "athletic footwear" for purposes of classification under subheading 6404.11.20, HTUS? 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, which reads 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. It is claimed that Customs erred in T.D. 92-32 by requiring that the hiking/backpacking boots at issue therein be "like" tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, and training shoes. The reason assigned for this error is that by inserting Additional U.S. Note 2 into Chapter 64, HTSUS, Congress expressly described what the phrase "tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like should cover. Consequently, an analysis of whether the hiking/backpacking boots were "like" tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes and training shoes should have been an irrelevant consideration. -3- You assert that "[i]t is a 'well-settled rule of statutory construction that for the purpose of ascertaining the intention of Congress, the entire context of the statute must be considered and every effort made to give full force and effect to all language contained therein.' . . . To say that a definition is restricted by the terminology of the phrase it is defining is to render the definition void, meaningless, and of no effect, for the very purpose of inserting a definition into a statute is to ensure that the defined phrase is interpreted in accordance with the definition, regardless of what the terms in the phrase might otherwise imply. . . ." Additional Note 2 to Chapter 64, HTSUS, neither restricts nor expands upon the terminology of subheading 6404.11, HTSUS. The U.S. Note merely clarifies the distinction between sports footwear and other athletic footwear. Further, a fair reading of the note reveals that its purpose was to clarify that it was not necessary for Customs to determine the "principal use" of each style imported as "like" due presumably to the blurring of the lines between "athletic" and casual wear in athletic shoes, (e.g., "athleisure" shoes). In T.D. 92-32 (16 Cust. Bull. 4), responding to the claim of importers that the hiking/backing 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. -4- You also assert that the reasons stated above for not considering hiking boots as athletic footwear are incorrect for the following reasons: 1. The hiking shoes in issue are no heavier than for example, the average pair of a corresponding size of basketball shoes. In fact, the literature of the GT Max and the GT Rugged specifically state that those styles are "[l]ightweight shoe[s] designed with an outsole ideal for mountain biking, short distance trail running, or day hiking with lightweight pack." (Emphasis added.) 2. Customs contended that all the exemplars were used in sports requiring fast footwork or extensive running. The sport of hiking requires fast footwork and/ or running -- for example, to cross a hazardous path, to leap across a gap or over a barrier, or to escape the elements or potential danger. Further, the active hiker/backpacker will incorporate sporadic jogging- like running (frequently between one-quarter to one- half mile intervals) into their day-long hikes. 3. If footwear had to be used in a sport requiring extensive running or fast footwear, in order to fall within the purview of "like" footwear under subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, then footwear such as aerobic shoes would be excluded from that provision. However, the sporting goods industry in the United States clearly considered aerobic footwear and other footwear not requiring extensive running (e.g., walking shoes) to come within the footwear category known as athletic footwear 4. The claim by Customs that the exemplars are not constructed so as to protect the foot against rough and rocky terrain is not correct. These shoes have characteristics such as carbon rubber outsoles, lugs on outer soles, EVA midsoles, heel counters, heel stabilizers, nylon mesh/leather uppers, removable sock liners, padded heel tabs, padded collars, padded tongues, lateral stabilizer straps, double toe foxings and adjustable width lacings which protect the foot against rough and rocky terrain. -5- With respect to aerobic shoes, it should be noted those with textile uppers and soles of rubber or plastics are classifiable under 6404.11, HTSUS, as "athletic footwear." However, 99 percent of imported aerobic shoes have leather or plastic uppers which require classification in heading 6402 or 6403, HTSUS, where the "athletic " distinction does not appear. Contrary to your assertion, aerobics, particularly "high-impact" aerobics require "fast footwork" and "extensive running" action, albeit normally in place. Due to the need for high skid resistance, for protection of the sides of the foot during foot sliding on a hard surface, and for protection from the jarring heel impact when running in place or jumping, aerobic shoes are made like and look like a hybrid of tennis shoes, basketball shoes and training (jogging) shoes. We note that no "low impact" aerobic shoes are sold. "Low-impactors" normally wear regular aerobic shoes capable of "higher-impact" use or tennis or gym shoes. They never wear any kind of hiking boot. Taking the exemplars in subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, into account and disregarding the treatment of aerobics, it is quite obvious that the Hi-Tec Backpacking Series such as the "Yazoo," with, among other things, its distinct heel, its upper extending way over the ankle, its very thick sole to protect against sharp rocks, and its steel shank, obviously does not belong in subheading 6404.11, HTSUS. The General Terrain Series such as the GT Rugged and the GT Max are more problematic. They are quite similar; the GT Max is a little heavier and more "hikeish" than the GT Rugged. Due to the studs, they are clearly different from the "hard surface" athletics, i.e., tennis, basketball and gym shoes. However, they are suitable for "short distance trail running." Therefore, there are several similarities between these two and the subset of jogging shoes which are appropriate for use on unpaved surfaces. Unlike the training shoes, these shoes have the following conspicuous differences: 1. a "heel" stabilizer which on the "in" side of the foot 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. -6- Based on the foregoing, it is our opinion that the above- listed differences between the shoes in issue and the exemplars listed in subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, prevents them from being considered "like" those exemplars. Consequently, styles GT Max, GT Rugged and Yazoo are classifiable under 6404.19, TSUS, 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, other. Inasmuch as you have stated that you are interested only in the "athletic" issue, we have not gone beyond the six digit classification. To provide an eight digit classification, we would need additional information (e.g., whether the shoes have protective features). HOLDING: The language of Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chaspter 64, HTSUS, does not expand the coverage of subheading 6404.11, HTSUS. The GT Max, GTR Rugged and the Yazoo are not considered "athletic footwear" for purposes of classification under subheading 6404.11.20, HTSUS. The GT Max, GT Rugged and the Yazoo are classifiable udner subheading 6404.19, HTSUS. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division 

HQ 089297 August 27, 1991 CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 089297 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.70; 6404.11.80 Ms. Marty Langtry Castelazo & Associates 5420 West 104th St. Los Angeles, CA 90045 RE: Shoe, boat; Footwear "athletic" Dear Ms. Langtry: In a letter dated April 23, 1991, you inquired as to the tariff classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA), of a "boat shoe" produced in Taiwan. A sample was submitted for examination. FACTS: The sample, style no. PL-666, is a sneaker style shoe for women and girls. It has a textile upper and a rubber sole. It is noted that item no. 15 on the IFA/FRA form relating to the presence of foxing or a foxing-like band was not answered. An examination of the sample reveals it has a foxing-like band. You state a belief that the cost of one pair will fall between $5.00 and $8.55. ISSUE: Is the sample shoe "like" the tennis shoes provided for in subheading 6404.11, HTSUSA? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Subheading 6404.11, HTSUSA, provides in pertinent part for tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like. It is our observation that since the sole is a "cut sole," (soles with zig zag razor cuts going from side to side), it would be useful on wet boat decks. However, the sample is in construction, materials and use, a lot "like" standard tennis/gym shoes. In view of the foregoing, footwear represented by the sample is classifiable, if valued over $3 but not over $6.50 per pair, under subheading 6404.11.70, HTSUSA, as footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics, tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes training shoes and the like, other, or under subheading 6404.11.80, HTSUSA, if valued over $6.50 but not over $12 per pair. HOLDING: The sample shoe is dutiable, if valued over $3 but not over $6.50 per pair, at the rate of 90 cents per pair plus 37.5 percent ad valorem under subheading 6404.11.70, HTSUSA, or at the rate of 90 cents per pair plus 20 percent ad valorem under subheading 6404.11.80, HTSUSA, if valued over $6.50 but not over $12 per pair. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division

HQ H032829 September 8, 2014 CLA-2 OT: RR: CTF: TCM H032829 EGJ CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.90 Judith Haggin J.L. Haggin & Associates Co. 1100 S.W. Sixth Ave. Suite 212 Portland, OR 97204 RE: Modification of HQ H012677, dated February 15, 2008; Classification of Aquatic Training Shoes Dear Ms. Haggin: This is in regard to Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) H012677, dated February 15, 2008, regarding the classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) of aquatic training shoes. In HQ H012677, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) affirmed New York Ruling Letter (NY) L85922, dated August 2, 2005, which classified the aquatic training shoes under subheading 6404.11.90, HTSUS. We have reviewed the analysis set forth in HQ H012677 and have determined that the analysis is incorrect. While we agree that the aquatic shoes are classifiable under subheading 6404.11.90, HTSUS, the correct provision under subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, is “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like,” and not “sports footwear.” Pursuant to section 625(c)(1), Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. §1625(c)(1)), as amended by section 623 of Title VI, notice of the proposed revocation was published on July 23, 2014, in the Customs Bulletin, Volume 48, No. 29. CBP received no comments in response to this notice. FACTS: The subject articles, identified as “Model Mako, Style AQx1001,” are athletic-type shoes designed for water fitness. They are sold by the importer, AQx, Inc. (AQx). AQx markets the shoes for use in vigorous activities such as running in water or aqua aerobics. The following is an image of the shoes: The shoes have a predominately textile material upper surface that does not cover the ankle. They also have a rubber/plastics external surface area, structural reinforcements at the toe and along the sides and eyelet stays at the back. The shoes also feature a functional lace closure complete with an adjustable plastic cinch stop to tighten and hold the shoe on the foot. The shoes have a cemented-on, unit molded, rubber/plastic material bottom/sole that overlaps the upper surface. There are three, semi-rigid rubber/plastic wing-like protrusions, or “gills,” on both sides of the shoe’s upper external surface. These “gills” provide resistance when exercising in water. The bottoms of the shoes contain small drain holes for water to drain out of the shoes after the wearer exits the water. The shoes are valued at over $12 per pair. ISSUE: Are the aquatic training shoes classifiable as “sports footwear” or as “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like” under subheading 6404.11, HTSUS? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Classification under the HTSUS is made in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs). GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative section or Chapter notes. GRI 6 requires that the classification of goods in the subheadings of headings shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings, any related subheading notes and mutatis mutandis, to the GRIs 1 through 5. The HTSUS provisions under consideration are as follows: 6404 Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: Footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics: 6404.11 Sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: Other: 6404.11.90 Valued over $12/pair * * * Subheading Note 1 to Chapter 64 provides that: For the purposes of subheadings 6402.12, 6402.19, 6403.12, 6403.19 and 6404.11, the expression “sports footwear” applies only to: Footwear which is designed for a sporting activity and has, or has a provision for the attachment of spikes, sprigs, cleats, stops, clips, bars or the like; Skating boots, ski-boots and cross-country ski footwear, snowboard boots, wrestling boots, boxing boots and cycling shoes. Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64 provides that: 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. * * * Applying GRI 6, the issue is whether the shoes are identifiable as “sports footwear” or as “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like” under subheading 6404.11, HTSUS. Subheading Note 1 to Chapter 64 states that “‘sports footwear’ applies only to...,” which conveys an intent to reasonably limit footwear classified as “sports footwear.” CBP has consistently held that the definition of “sports footwear” in Subheading Note 1 to Chapter 64 should be interpreted narrowly. See HQ 956942, dated November 7, 1994; HQ 963462, dated November 24, 2000 and NY H87213, dated February 22, 2002. The terms “spikes, sprigs, cleats, stops, clips [and] bars” are not defined in the HTSUS or its legislative history. When, as in this case, a tariff term is not defined by the HTSUS or its legislative history, “the term’s correct meaning is its common meaning.” Mita Copystar Am. v. United States, 21 F.3d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The common meaning of a term used in commerce is presumed to be the same as its commercial meaning. Simod Am. Corp. v. United States, 872 F.2d 1572, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1989). To ascertain the common meaning of a term, a court may consult “dictionaries, scientific authorities, and other reliable information sources” and “lexicographic and other materials.” C.J. Tower & Sons v. United States, 673 F.2d 1268, 1271 (CCPA 1982); Simod, 872 F.2d at 1576. The Complete Footwear Dictionary, 172 (2nd ed. 2000), defines a spike as “a short, sharp metal piece protruding from the bottom of the shoe sole, used for traction on track shoes. Also used on some shoes or boots for mountain climbing or walking on slippery surfaces.” It defines cleats as “a knob or spike on the sole for increased traction; arranged in groups or patterns.” Id. at 34. The Complete Footwear Dictionary also defines a clip as “the tightness of shoe fit on the last around the topline.” Id. at 34. A shoe’s last is the plastic, wood or metal form over which the shoe is made to conform to the prescribed shape and size of the shoe. Id. at 98. A bar is defined as “a piece of material of any of various shapes or thicknesses, used for shoe modifications or as an orthotic to alter foot tread or gait.” Id. at 9. The Complete Footwear Dictionary shows diagrams of different shoe bars attached to shoe soles. A sprig and a stop are not defined in The Complete Footwear Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2014) defines a sprig as “a small headless nail.” Id. available at www.merriam-webster.com. It also defines a stop as “a device for arresting or limiting motion.” Id. CBP’s interpretation of the terms “spikes, sprigs, cleats, stops, bars or the like” in regards to “sports footwear” has generally included projections attached to, or molded into the soles of sports footwear to provide traction during sporting activities such as golf, field sports (baseball, soccer, American football, rugby etc.) or track & field events. In addition, CBP has also included crampons and similar attachments for rock/ice-climbing boots in the definition of these terms. CBP has determined that outdoor recreational footwear suitable for everyday walking is not “sports footwear.” See HQ 956942 (CBP found that a steel shank wrapped in canvas in the sole of a horseback riding shoe did not satisfy the definition of sports footwear). According to HQ 963462 and NY H87213 respectively, golf shoes with plastic nubs instead of cleats and football shoes with short flat cleats instead of long sharp cleats do not meet the definition of sports footwear. The subject aquatic shoes have gills on the sides and drain holes on the bottoms. Neither of these elements provides traction during sporting activities. The gills and drain holes are not similar to spikes, sprigs, cleats, stops bars or the like. As such, the aquatic training shoes cannot be classified as sports footwear under subheading 6404.11, HTSUS. The aquatic training shoes are specifically designed for athletic training in the water. The gills provide resistance for runners training in the water, as well as adding resistance for participants in water aerobics. As such, the shoes are training shoes and are classifiable as “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like” under subheading 6404.11, HTSUS. HOLDING: By application of GRIs 1 and 6, the subject aquatic training shoes are classifiable under subheading 6404.11.90, HTSUS, which provides for, in pertinent part: “Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics: … tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued over $12/pair.” The 2014 column one, general rate of duty is 20 percent ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for convenience only and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on the World Wide Web at www.usitc.gov. EFFECT ON OTHER RULINGS: HQ H012677, dated February 15, 2008, is hereby modified. Sincerely, Myles B. Harmon, Director Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division

HQ H304876 December 7, 2020 OT:RR:CTF:FTM H304876 TJS CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.90 Port Director Port of Los Angeles U.S. Customs and Border Protection 301 E. Ocean Blvd. Long Beach CA Attn: Crystal Morgan, Supervisory Import Specialist Re: Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2704-19-102962; Classification of Women’s Footwear Dear Port Director: This is in reference to the Application for Further Review (“AFR”) of Protest No. 2704-19-102962, received on April 12, 2019, on behalf of Shoes West Inc. (“Protestant”), regarding U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (“CBP”) tariff classification of certain women’s footwear under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). In addition to the written submission, our decision below takes into consideration a telephone conference with Protestant’s counsel on December 1, 2020. FACTS: The merchandise at issue is a style of women’s shoes, identified as style no. MST-13482A or “Moc Star.” The shoes are below-the-ankle sneakers with a lace-up closure, a textile upper with a separately-attached tongue, a padded collar, heel counter, a foxing or foxing-like band, and a general athletic appearance. Pictures provided by Protestant show a rubber or plastics outer sole with traction provided by the raised letters of the company’s brand “täos” in a repeating pattern that covers the entire external surface that touches the ground and small grooves along the edge of the outer sole. According to marketing materials, the cushioned removable footbed provides balance, stability, arch support, heel support, and metatarsal support. The subject merchandise was entered on December 21, 2018 under subheading 6404.19.90, 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: Other: Other: Valued over $12/pair.” The merchandise was liquidated on March 15, 2019 and re-liquidated on March 22, 2019 under subheading 6404.11.90, 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: Other: Valued over $12/pair.” ISSUE: What is the tariff classification of the women’s footwear under the HTSUS? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Initially, we note that the matter protested is protestable under 19 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(2) as a decision on classification. The protest was timely filed within 180 days of liquidation. (Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-429, § 2103(2)(B)(ii), (iii) (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c)(3) (2006)). Further Review of Protest No. 2704-19-102962 is properly accorded to Protestant pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24(b) because the decision against which the protest was filed is alleged to involve questions of law or fact which have not been ruled upon by the Commissioner of CBP or his designee or by the Customs courts. Classification under the HTSUS is determined in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (“GRI”). GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative Section or Chapter Notes. In the event that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRI may then be applied. The 2018 HTSUS provisions under consideration are as follows: 6404: Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: Footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics: 6404.11: Sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: Other: 6404.11.90: Valued over $12/pair: (20%) * * * * * 6404.19: Other: Other: 6404.19.90: Valued over $12/pair: (9%) * * * * * Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64, HTSUS, provides as follows: 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. * * * * * Treasury Decision (“T.D.”) 93-88, which provides “Footwear Definitions,” states, in pertinent part, that “athletic” footwear includes: “Athletic” footwear (sports footwear included in this context) includes: 1. Shoes usable only in the serious pursuit of a particular sport, which have or have provision for attachment of spikes, cleats, clips or the like. 2. Ski, wrestling & boxing boots; cycling shoes; and skating boots w/o skates attached. 3. Tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes (sneakers), training shoes (joggers) and the like whether or not principally used for such athletic games or purposes. It does not include: Shoes that resemble sport shoes but clearly could not be used at all in that sporting activity. Examples include sneakers with a sequined or extensively embroidered uppers. A “slip-on”, except gymnastic slippers. Skate boots with ice or roller skates attached. Footwear Definitions, Treas. Dec. 93-88, 27 Cust. B. & Dec. No. 46 (Oct. 25, 1993). * * * * * In its submission, Protestant argues that the subject footwear is not “athletic” footwear described by the clause “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like” in the text of subheading 6404.11, HTSUS. Although the Protestant concedes that the shoe has some features considered athletic, it argues that the majority of the features are routinely found in footwear that is not athletic. Specifically, Protestant contends that: (1) the shoe is not particularly flexible; (2) the outer sole does not have an athletic tread; (3) the shoe lacks a padded tongue, anti-injury devices, and toe bumpers, (4) the collar has minimal padding; (5) the heel counter is soft and pliable; and (6) the shoe has a fully collapsible upper and a moccasin-type toe. Furthermore, Protestant notes that the shoe’s purpose is comfort and it is not marketed for athletic activity. The dispute is at the six-digit level of classification. The footwear is described by the terms of heading 6404, HTSUS, which provides for “Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials.” At issue here is whether the footwear under consideration is “athletic” footwear within the meaning of Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64, HTSUS, and classified in subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, as “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like,” or whether the footwear is classified in subheading 6404.19, HTSUS, as “other” footwear. Subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, provides for “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like.” The principle of ejusdem generis applies to provisions containing the phrase “and the like.” In an ejusdem generis analysis, “where an enumeration of specific things is followed by a general word or phrase, the general word or phrase is held to refer to things of the same kind as those specified.” Deckers Corp. v. United States, 752 F.3d 949, 952 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(“Deckers II”) (citing Sports Graphics, Inc. v. United States, 24 F.3d 1390, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). In Deckers Corp. v. United States (“Deckers I”), 532 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2008), aff’d, Deckers II, 752 F.3d 949, on the issue of whether Teva Sport Sandals were classified in subheading 6404.11 as “athletic footwear,” the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated that to determine the essential characteristic of the specified enumerated articles, “courts may consider attributes such as the purpose, character, material, design, and texture.” Deckers I, 532 F.3d at 1316. In regard to the particular exemplars of heading 6404.11, HTSUS, the court determined that “the fundamental feature that the exemplars share is the design, specifically the enclosed upper, which contains features that stabilize the foot, and protect against abrasion and impact.” Id. at 1317. Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64 states that athletic footwear is classified in subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, “whether or not principally used for such athletic games or purposes.” CBP has interpreted this Note to mean that shoes need not be used solely for athletic purposes, but also those shoes that share appearance, qualities, and character with the named exemplars are classified there. See Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H236274 (Sept. 17, 2015) (classifying “athleisure” shoes as athletic); and HQ 953882 (Sept. 24, 1993) (holding that hiking boots were not “like” the exemplars). Thus, a shoe may be designed for casual use and still be classified as athletic footwear. It is CBP’s position that for footwear to be classified as athletic footwear under subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, it must be suitable for an activity that requires fast footwork or extensive running. See HQ 964625 (Sept. 10, 2001) (“All the exemplars are used in sports which require fast footwork or extensive running.”); and NY N154085 (Apr. 4, 2011). Thus, when determining whether footwear is classified as athletic footwear under subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, CBP looks at various features and characteristics including, but not limited to, overall appearance, materials, and construction of the upper and outer sole. Some of the features or characteristics of athletic footwear CBP has consistently included are: a lightweight upper, a lightweight, flexible outer sole that provides traction, lace-up, or some other type of secure closure, underfoot cushioning, collar (padded or not), tongue (padded or not), toe bumpers, heel counters/stabilizers, and ventilation holes. See HQ H265479 (Mar. 28, 2016); NY N310350 (Mar. 26, 2020); NY N020906 (Jan. 9, 2008); and NY M82301 (May 26, 2006). However, athletic footwear need not exhibit all of these features. See NY N218203 (June 6, 2012); and NY N154085 (Apr. 4, 2011). We disagree with the Protestant’s assertion that the outer sole does not have the flexibility and tread requisite of athletic footwear. Photos of the sample show that the sole is flexible enough to easily fold the footwear in half. Additionally, the Taos website states that the Moc Star’s outsole consists of “Flexible, durable rubber.” Taos, https://taosfootwear.com/view-all/moc-star (last visited Dec. 1, 2020). We also find that the footwear’s outer sole tread, which consists of the company’s logo “täos” patterned across the entire external surface, provides traction on smooth and unsmooth surfaces. The outer sole also has grooves along the outer edge, providing further traction and allowing the wearer to engage in fast footwork. An online retailer of the subject footwear, Zappos.com, demonstrates the flexibility of the shoe in a promotional video and states that the “Durable rubber outsole provides excellent traction and a long-lasting wear.” Zappos.com, https://www.zappos.com/product/8998551/ (last visited Dec. 1, 2020). We also find that the subject footwear has features that protect the wearer from injury such as the removable padded insole, which is shock absorbent and provides heel support, arch support, and metatarsal support. Furthermore, the Protestant asserts that the shoe is marketed as casual, comfortable shoes and not as athletic footwear, although the Taos website categorizes the Moc Star shoes as “Active” sneakers, implying that they are capable of dynamic physical activity. Taos, https://taosfootwear.com/active (last visited Dec. 1, 2020). Regardless of whether or not the shoes are marketed as athletic footwear, the determinative issue is whether the subject Moc Star shoe shares physical characteristics with the exemplars of subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, as “athletic footwear.” See, e.g., NY N031799 (July 15, 2008) (classifying canvas sneakers that were marketed as casual wear fashion shoes in subheading 6404.11.9050, HTSUS, based on their athletic features). The Moc Star shoe at issue is similar to the one in HQ H236274, dated September 17, 2015, wherein CBP classified a men’s sneaker identified as Keds® “The Champion” in subheading 6404.11.89, HTSUS. Like the footwear at issue, the shoe in HQ H236274 was a below-the-ankle lace-up sneaker with a textile upper, a rubber or plastics outer sole, with a foxing or foxing-like band, and a general athletic appearance. The rubber outsole provided traction and was lightweight and flexible. The importer submitted that the shoe lacked arch support, shock absorbers, toe bumpers, padding around the heel, ankle, and tongue, underfoot cushioning, and significant traction on the sole. Nevertheless, CBP determined that the shoe shared physical characteristics and attributes with the exemplars of subheading 6404.11, HTSUS. Upon review and examination of the materials provided, we conclude that the footwear has the general appearance and many of the construction features present in athletic footwear. In particular, the shoe has a lightweight, flexible upper that is secured to a flexible, rubber outsole with a foxing or foxing-like band. It has a lace-front closure with a tongue that secures the footwear to the wearer, enabling the wearer to engage in fast footwork. The shoe also has underfoot cushioning with support features, a padded collar, heel counter, and a traction outer sole. The Moc Star footwear possesses all the attributes that CBP considers characteristic of the exemplars named in Additional U.S. Note 2, above, and are therefore “like” those exemplars. Accordingly, we find that the footwear at issue is classified in subheading 6404.11.90, 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: Other: Valued over $12/pair.” HOLDING: By application of GRI 1, the subject women’s shoes are classified under heading 6404, HTSUS, specifically under subheading 6404.11.9050, 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: Other: Valued over $12/pair: For women: Other.” The 2018 column one, general rate of duty is 20% ad valorem. You are instructed to DENY the protest. In accordance with Sections IV and VI of the CBP Protest/Petition Processing Handbook (HB 3500-08A, December 2007, pp. 24 and 26), you are to mail this decision, together with the CBP Form 19, to the Protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter. Any re-liquidation of the entry or entries in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to mailing the decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision, the Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings will make the decision available to CBP personnel, and to the public on the Customs Rulings Online Search System (“CROSS”) at https://rulings.cbp.gov/ which can be found on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website at http://www.cbp.gov and other methods of public distribution. Sincerely, For Craig T. Clark, Director Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division

NY I83880 July 22, 2002 CLA-2-64:RR:NC:347:I83880 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.90 Mr. Eric M. Hale Nike USA, Inc. One Bowerman Drive Beaverton, OR 97005 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from Korea Dear Mr. Hale: In your letter dated June 27, 2002, you requested a tariff classification ruling for a sample of footwear identified as Nike style RMT825-M1-C4, Air Trail Wrap, men’s trail running shoe. You describe the merchandise which is the subject of this ruling request as a men’s size 9 running shoe specifically designed for outdoor trail running. You state that the external surface area of the upper is predominantly textile and the external surface area of the outer sole is rubber/plastics. You further state that the shoe incorporates features that differ from a normal running shoe, including a thermoplastic rubber cage that extensively wraps around the entire upper and an aggressive outsole for traction on rocky, mountainous trails. You acknowledge that the shoe is lighter than traditional “hikers”, but is heavier than high performance running shoes. You believe that the weight, general appearance and protective features differ enough for this shoe to be excluded from subheading 6404.11 (which provides for sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like) and so placed in subheading 6404.19. The shoe is an athletic shoe with an upper of textile material and an outer sole of rubber/plastics. The shoe does not cover the ankle and has a foxing-like band encircling the entire shoe. The textile upper features a web-like molded plastic cage that extends from the outer sole and provides, as you state, heel stability and protection, medial and lateral support, general protection from rocks and other trail debris and toe area support. The shoe is held to the foot with a lace, closure system. You provide an FOB value of over $12/pair. Chapter 64, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (HTS), Additional U.S. Note 2, states: 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 general, this office interprets this note to mean that “athletic” covers not only tennis, basketball, training and gym shoes, but also shoes that are like those named exemplars. We further interpret “like” to mean that which has the same, or nearly the same appearance, qualities or characteristics as the named exemplars. In addition, it is further Customs position that in order for footwear to be classified as athletic footwear in 6404.11 (HTS), it must be constructed for an activity that requires fast footwork or extensive running. In this regard, we disagree with your contention that this shoe is excluded from classification in subheading 6404.11 (HTS) in so far as the shoe looks, functions and has the characteristics of athletic footwear and is designed for running. The applicable subheading for Nike style RMT825-M1-C4, Air Trail Wrap will be 6404.11.90 (HTS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics and uppers of textile, sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like, other, valued over $12/pair. The general rate of duty will be 20 percent ad valorem. 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, Richard Foley at 646-733-3042. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division

N101099 May 5, 2010 CLA-2-64:OT:RR:NC:N4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.80, 6404.11.90 Ms. Pat Danilczyk USG Logistics Inc. 1975 Linden Boulevard Suite 111 Elmont, NY 11003 RE: The tariff classification of wrestling shoes from China Dear Ms. Danilczyk: In your letter dated April 8, 2010, you requested a tariff classification ruling on behalf of Henson Co. Inc., Sinking Spring, PA. Copies of marketing materials and samples were submitted with your letter. The above the ankle, lace-up wrestling shoes have uppers made of 70 percent textile, 20 percent synthetic (rubber/plastics), and 10 percent leather (suede). A rubber or plastics material is the constituent material of the outer sole having the greatest surface area in contact with the ground. You have informed this office by telephone that item no. 2G12671 - youth sizes, will be valued at $9.85 per pair and item no. 2G17568 - adult sizes, will be valued at over $12 per pair. The applicable subheading for item no. 2G12671 wrestling shoes for youths will be 6404.11.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (HTSUS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics and uppers of textile material: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued over $6.50 but not over $12/pair. The general rate of duty will be 90 cents per pair plus 20 percent ad valorem. The applicable subheading for item no. 2G17568 wrestling shoes for adults will be 6404.11.90, HTSUS, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics and uppers of textile material: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued over $12/pair. The general rate of duty will be 20 percent ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. 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, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division

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

N077717 October 1, 2009 CLA-2-64:OT:RR:NC:N4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6403.99.9041, 6404.11.8090 Ms. Mei C. Li Marubeni America Corporation 375 Lexington Avenue 6th Floor New York, N.Y. 10017 RE: The tariff classification of children’s footwear from China Dear Ms. Li: In your letter dated September 21, 2009 you requested a tariff classification ruling for two footwear items. You state that the first submitted sample, which you identify as “Orange Leather One Strap”, has an upper of 55% leather, 40% textile and 5% other material with an outer sole of 100% rubber. You state that the second submitted sample, which you identify as “Child 31 Leather”, has an upper of 45% leather, 50% textile and 5% other material with an outer sole of 100% rubber. The unit price for both samples is $9.00/pair. The applicable subheading for the “Orange Leather One Strap” will be 6403.99.9041, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of leather: other footwear: other: other: for other persons: valued over $2.50/pair: other tennis shoes, basketball shoes, and the like. The rate of duty will be 10%. The applicable subheading for the “Child 31 Leather” will be 6404.11.8090, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued over $6.50 but not over $12.00/pair: other. The rate of duty will be 90 cents/pair plus 20% Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. 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 Richard Foley at (646) 733-3042. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division 

N005018 January 17, 2007 CLA-2-64:RR:SP:247 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6402.99.9030, 6404.11.9020, 6404.11.9050, 6404.11.2060 Ms. Ruth Texeira Columbia Sportswear Company 14375 N.W. Science Park Drive Portland, OR 97229 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China or Vietnam Dear Ms. Texeira: In your letter dated December 27, 2006, you requested a tariff classification ruling for four footwear styles.       Style “Hardrock GM 1057” is described as a men’s high-end trail running shoe with a closed toe & heel; a foxing-like band; lace-up closure and does not cover the ankle. The upper is predominantly rubber/plastics. You state that the shoe has a bottom platform (outer sole and mid-sole components) which includes a rubber outer sole, EVA midsole and a hardened plastic plate in-between to protect against rocks and other trail hazards encountered during long distance mountain trail races. The applicable subheading for style “Hardrock GM 1057” will be 6402.99.9030, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (HTSUS), which provides for footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber/plastics: other: other: valued over $12/pair, for men. The general rate of duty will be 20 percent ad valorem. Style “Namche GM 2009” is described as an “ultra-high performance” running shoe that covers the ankle. You state that the shoe has the same bottom platform as the “Hardrock GM 1057” described above. The external surface area of the upper is composed of 52.7 percent textile material and 47.3 percent rubber/plastics. The shoe has a closed toe & heel, a foxing-like band and a lace-up closure. You are concerned that the presence of the hardened plastic plate in-between the outer sole and mid-sole component results in the sole having less flexibility than ordinary running shoes and therefore, may not be “athletic” footwear for classification purposes. Chapter 64, HTSUS, Additional U.S. Note 2 provides that 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, whether or not principally used for such athletic games or purposes. In HRL 955224, dated March 25, 1994, CBP ruled that a man’s over-the-ankle shoe was "like" tennis, basketball, gym or training shoes and was classified in subheading 6404.11, HTSUS despite an outer sole which is somewhat heavier than some, but not all, jogging shoes. Among the reasons given were the footwear is constructed along the same general lines as athletic footwear, the footwear is lightweight and designed for use in activities requiring fast footwork and extensive running. Style “Namche GM 2009” is a running shoe exhibiting many features indicative of “athletic” footwear including sneaker construction and look, an athletic outer sole tread, a secure lace-up closure system, a foxing or foxing-like band, a padded tongue, footbed and collar, a heel counter and toe bumper and anti-pronation, (the outward rotation or twisting of the heel), protective features. The presence of a hardened plastic plate in-between the midsole and outer sole does not, in this instance, preclude classification as “athletic” footwear. The applicable subheading for style “Namche GM 2009” will be 6404.11.9020, HTSUS, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics and uppers of textile material: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued over $12/pair, for men: other. The general rate of duty will be 20 percent ad valorem. Style “Zealous BL 2178” is described as a ladies below-the-ankle shoe. The outer sole is rubber/plastics and the upper is textile material. It has a lace-up closure system and an athletic outer sole tread. The applicable subheading for style “Zealous BL 2178” will be 6404.11.9050, HTSUS, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics and uppers of textile material: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued over $12/pair, for women: other. The general rate of duty will be 20 percent ad valorem. Style “Tenancity II BL 2202” is described as a ladies below-the-ankle shoe with a “majority leather upper.” The shoe has the same athletic outer sole tread as the “Zealous BL 2178.” The upper is composed of textile material and leather. Although you state that the upper is “majority” leather, it is the opinion of this office that the leather pieces that hold the metal lace-loops are accessories or reinforcements and not included in the initial external surface area of the upper, (ESAU), measurement. In this regard, the shoe has an upper of predominantly textile material. The applicable subheading for style “Tenancity II BL 2202” will be 6404.11.2060, HTSUS, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics and uppers of textile material: 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) is leather, for women. The general rate of duty will be 10.5 percent ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. 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, Richard Foley at 646-733-3042. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division

March 28, 2016 HQ H265479 CLA-2 OT:RR:CTF:TCM HQ H265479 TSM CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.90; 6404.19.90 Port Director, Port of Boston, Massachusetts U.S. Customs and Border Protection 10 Causeway Street – Room 603 Boston, MA 02222 Attn: Thomas J. Brigham, Senior Import Specialist Re: Protest and Application for Further Review No. 0401-14-100073; Classification of certain women's footwear Dear Port Director: The following is our decision regarding Protest and Application for Further Review No. 0401-14-100073, timely filed on October 6, 2014, on behalf of Bucketfeet, Inc. (“Bucketfeet” or “Protestant”) regarding the tariff classification of two styles of women’s footwear (a slip-on style and a lace-up style) under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). This office received and inspected samples of the Bucketfeet footwear along with images of both footwear styles. FACTS: Bucketfeet manufactures and sells artist-designed footwear. According to the Bucketfeet website at www.bucketfeet.com, Bucketfeet exists to connect people through art. It notes that a different artist designed every shoe they make to create footwear that tell a story. The Bucketfeet artist community includes painters, graphic designers, graffiti artists, photographers, and more. The slip-on style shoes at issue have the following style names: Caduras Pink, Like Butter Black, WTF, Vidaboa, Cabezas, Pasco 54, Tatau, Sixth Street, Earth, Reef, Pineappleade, Fuego 2, Nomad 2, Bamboo 2 and Pescao 2. The lace-up style shoes at issue have the following style names: Atypical, False Denim, Fuego, Patchwork, Waterloo, Austin, Orange Sherbert, Bad Panda, Navajo (Archer), Jayson Atienza, Masterpiece, Delta, Mesa Sunset, Fat Sugar, and Jayson. Both the slip-on and lace-up styles have textile canvas uppers and rubber outer soles. The slip-on style is designed to slip on the foot with no buckles, ties or other closures and is secured to the wearer’s foot with elastic gores on either side of the vamp. The lace-up style has laces that are tied to hold the shoe to the foot. Both styles include a rubber foxing-like band that goes around the entire shoe, reaching to the ground, with an additional rubber toe bumper that wraps the front of the shoe. Both styles have a ribbed bottom sole that provides traction. The horizontal ribbings on the bottom sole are interrupted by additional, separate ribbings that form the word “Bucketfeet” across the length of the sole. Both styles have thick, cushioned insoles with massaging air bubbles that, according to the Bucketfeet website at www.bucketfeet.com, “cushion each step for maximum walking/dancing/turbo-kicking comfort”. Neither style has additional cushioning or support through the arch of the foot, but the Bucketfeet website at www.bucketfeet.com, confirms that the insoles are removable and can be replaced with insoles with more arch support. Both styles have extra cushioning around the collar of the shoe. The lace-up style also includes a light padding under the tongue. The cost of the footwear is said to be more than $12 per pair. The subject merchandise was originally entered on June 1, 2013 under subheading 6404.19.90, HTSUS, as “Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: Footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics: Other: Other: Valued over $12/pair.” On May 16, 2014, the subject merchandise was liquidated under subheading 6404.11.90, HTSUS, as “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: Other: Valued over $12/pair.” Protestant claims that the subject merchandise should be classified in subheading 6404.19.90, HTSUS, as entered. ISSUE: Whether the subject footwear constitute “athletic” footwear such as “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like,” that are classified in subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, or “other” footwear of subheading 6404.19, HTSUS. LAW AND ANALYSIS: Initially, we note that the matter protested is protestable under 19 U.S.C. §1514(a) (2) as a decision on classification. The protest was timely filed, within 180 days of liquidation of the entry. (Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2004, Pub.L. 108-429, § 2103(2) (B) (ii), (iii) (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 1514(c) (3) (2006)). Further Review of Protest No. 0401-14-100073 is properly accorded to Protestant pursuant to 19 C.F.R. § 174.24 (a) because Protestant alleges that the decision against which the protest was filed is inconsistent with New York Ruling Letter (NY) N242010, dated June 14, 2013 and NY N234459, dated November 16, 2012. Classification under the HTSUS is made in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs).  GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative section or chapter notes.  In the event that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRIs 2 through 6 may then be applied in order.  The 2013 HTSUS provisions under consideration are as follows: 6404 Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: Footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics: 6404.11 Sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: Other: 6404.11.90 Valued over $12/pair * * * 6404.19 Other: Other: 6404.19.90 Valued over $12/pair Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64 provides as follows: 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. Treasury Decision (“T.D.”) 93-88, dated October 25, 1993, states, in pertinent part, that “athletic” footwear includes: * * * 3. Tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes (sneakers), training shoes (joggers) and the like whether or not principally used for such athletic games or purposes. It does not include: Shoes that resemble sport shoes but clearly could not be used at all in that sporting activity. Examples include sneakers with sequined or extensively embroidered uppers. A “slip-on,” except gymnastic slippers. Skate boots with ice or roller skates attached. We note that this dispute is at the six-digit level of classification. We agree with the Protestant that the subject footwear is described by the terms of heading 6404, HTSUS, which provides for “Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials.” At issue here is whether the footwear under consideration is “athletic” footwear within the meaning of Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64, and classified in subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, as “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like”, or whether the footwear is classified in subheading 6404.19, HTSUS, as “other” footwear. In its submission, Protestant argues that the subject footwear is not “athletic” footwear described by the clause “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like" in the text of subheading 6404.11, HTSUS. Although Protestant concedes that the footwear “only resembles sneakers in some superficial ways,” it argues that the footwear would not be comfortable for extensive running, and that it is completely inappropriate for athletic activities. Specifically, Protestant notes that: (1) the presence of the cushioning and padded tongue and collars enhance the wearer’s comfort while walking, making the subject footwear inappropriate for playing sports; (2) the soles of the subject footwear are dense and heavy, and while they bend at the toe, they are not flexible like those of a “sneaker”; (3) the soles are not designed to provide the level of traction required in a sporting activity and any traction that might be provided by the outer sole of the subject footwear is interrupted by the foxing band that reaches all the way to the ground; furthermore, the “Bucketfeet” imprint down the middle of the sole breaks up the texture of the sole; (4) the subject footwear includes several comfort features, appropriate for high-quality, casual footwear not intended for athletic use; besides the foxing and toe bumper, they do not include any anti-injury or otherwise protective features; (5) the lack of a reinforced toe box and the crafting on the outsole, which both reduce the amount of material used and stability, are examples of characteristics inherent in Bucketfeet’s shoes that make them completely inappropriate for athletic activities; and (6) while the subject footwear is not embroidered or sequined, the extensive and colorful printing is equivalent in purpose and effect, which shows that the subject footwear is not athletic. First, we will address the lace-up style of footwear. Subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, provides for “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like.” The principle of ejusdem generis applies to provisions containing the phrase “and the like.” In an ejusdem generis analysis, "where an enumeration of specific things is followed by a general word or phrase, the general word or phrase is held to refer to things of the same kind as those specified." Deckers Corp. v. United States, 752 F.3d 949, 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014) citing Sports Graphics, Inc. v. United States, 24 F.3d 1390, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In Deckers Corp. v. United States (Deckers I), 532 F. 3d 1212 (Fed .Cir. 2008), aff’d Deckers Corp. v. United States (Deckers II), 753 F 3d 949 (Fed. Cir. 2014), on the issue of whether Teva Sport Sandals were classified in subheading 6404.11 as “athletic footwear,” the Court of Federal Appeals stated: “To determine the essential characteristics, courts may consider attributes such as the purpose, character, material, design and texture.” Deckers I, 532 F. 3d 1312 at 1315-1316. Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64 states that athletic footwear is classified in subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, “whether or not principally used for such athletic games or purposes.” CBP has interpreted this Note to mean that shoes need not be used solely for athletic purposes but also those shoes that share appearance, qualities and character with the named exemplars are classified there. See Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 953882, dated September 24, 1993 on “athleisure” shoes, aff’d Deckers I, 532 F. 3d. at 1316. Thus, a shoe may be designed for casual use and still be classified as athletic footwear. When determining whether footwear is classified as athletic footwear under subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, we look at various features including, but not limited to, overall appearance, materials, construction of the upper and construction of the outer sole. Some of the features or characteristics of athletic footwear CBP has consistently included are: a lightweight upper, a lightweight, flexible outer sole that provides traction, lace-up, or some other type of secure closure, underfoot cushioning, collar (padded or not), tongue (padded or not), toe bumpers, heel counters/stabilizers, and ventilation holes. See NY M82301, dated May 26, 2006. See also NY N020906, dated January 9, 2008. These features are characteristic of athletic footwear. However, athletic footwear need not exhibit all of these construction features. See NY N218203, dated June 6, 2012. See also NY N154085, dated April 4, 2011. Upon review and examination of the samples of the lace-up style of footwear, we conclude that it has the general appearance and many of the construction features present in athletic footwear. We note that the soles of the lace-up style of footwear are not as dense and heavy as the Protestant claims, and they do have the flexibility needed to perform fast footwork. In fact, the Bucketfeet website at www.bucketfeet.com, indicates that the comfort feature massaging air bubbles “cushion each step for maximum walking/dancing/turbo-kicking comfort.” “Dancing” is defined as: “movement in a quick and lively way.” Dancing is also defined as “rapid, lively movement.”  Turbo kick is described as follows: “Turbo Kick is a mix of kickboxing and hip hop dance moves that gets your heart pumping!”  In addition, the soles are designed to provide traction with horizontal ribbings and grooves throughout the outersole’s entire external surface area, interrupted only by more ribbings and grooves arranged to spell the word “Bucketfeet,” across the length of the bottom of the shoes. This feature adds to the traction control from different directions; moreover, the foxing band touching the ground hardly reduces the traction capabilities. Although the lace-up style of footwear has artist-designed screen printing on the textile canvas portions, they do not have any external decorations, such as sequins or beads, that could otherwise come loose and fall off. Finally, we note that athletic footwear can be comfortable and need not have any protective or anti-injury features. See NY M82301, dated May 26, 2006 (distinct features characteristic of athletic footwear are generally a lightweight textile material (usually canvas) upper, a lightweight, flexible rubber outersole that provides traction, lace-to-toe (or some other type of closure system to secure the footwear to the foot), under foot cushioning and padding on the tongue and collar). Thus, we find that the lace-up style of footwear has a general athletic appearance, foxing-like bands and underfoot cushioning that enable the wearer to engage in fast footwork, and the footwear is flexible and has a ribbed pattern traction outer sole. The lace-up style of footwear possesses all of the attributes that CBP considers characteristic of the exemplars named in Additional U.S. Note 2, above, and are therefore "like" those exemplars. In its submission, Protestant argued that classification of the subject lace-up footwear as athletic is inconsistent with NY N242010, dated June 14, 2013. In that ruling, CBP found that certain women’s lace-up casual footwear with a rubber or plastics sole and a textile upper was not athletic footwear. CBP’s conclusion was based on the fact that the footwear at issue in NY N242010 did not have a traction outer sole capable of being used in athletic activities. In contrast, upon examination of the samples of the lace-up footwear provided, we find that the soles of the subject footwear are designed to provide traction with horizontal ribbings and grooves throughout the outersole’s entire external surface area, interrupted only by more ribbings and grooves arranged to spell the word “Bucketfeet,” across the length of the bottom of the shoes, which add to the traction from different directions. Accordingly, we conclude that the subject lace-up footwear can be distinguished from the footwear at issue in NY N242010. Protestant also argued that classification of the subject lace-up footwear as athletic footwear is inconsistent with NY N234459, dated November 16, 2012. However, at issue in NY N234459 was a casual shoe lacking underfoot padding and any support for side-to-side movements. In addition, the sole of the footwear at issue in NY N234459 had a flat surface and lacked traction. Based on our findings above, including the fact that the subject lace-up footwear has thick cushioned insoles with massage bubbles, it can be distinguished from the footwear at issue in NY N234459. Accordingly, we find that the lace-up style of footwear at issue is classified in subheading 6404.11.90, 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: Other: Valued over $12/pair.” See NY N002944, dated November 15, 2006; and NY N L88216, dated November 15, 2005. Next, we will address the slip-on style of footwear. Based upon our examination of the slip-on style of footwear, although this style has many of the construction features found in the lace-up style of footwear discussed above, and present in athletic footwear, the slip-on style is designed to slip on the foot with no buckles, ties or other closures and is secured to the wearer’s foot with elastic gores on either side of the vamp. On November 17, 1993, in the Customs Bulletin, Volume 27, Number 46, CBP published Treasury Decision (T.D.) 93–88, which contains certain footwear definitions used to classify footwear. The footwear definitions were provided merely as guidelines and, although consulted here, are not to be construed as CBP rulings. With respect to ‘‘athletic” footwear, T.D. 93–88 states, in relevant part, that “athletic” footwear does not include a “slip-on” shoe. We conclude that the slip-on style of footwear is not “athletic” footwear within the meaning of Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64, and is not described by the text of subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, as “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like”. See NY N268295, dated September 11, 2015; and NY N266188, dated July 27, 2015. Accordingly, we find that the slip-on footwear at issue is classified in subheading 6404.19.90, 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: Other: Other: Valued over $12/pair.” HOLDING: By application of GRIs 1 and 6, the lace-up footwear styles Atypical, False Denim, Fuego, Patchwork, Waterloo, Austin, Orange Sherbert, Bad Panda, Navajo (Archer), Jayson Atienza, Masterpiece, Delta, Mesa Sunset, Fat Sugar, and Jayson are classified in heading 6404, HTSUS, and specifically in subheading 6404.11.90, HTSUS, as “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: Other: Valued over $12/pair.” The 2013 column one general rate of duty is 20% ad valorem. By application of GRIs 1 and 6, the slip-on footwear styles Caduras Pink, Like Butter Black, WTF, Vidaboa, Cabezas, Pasco 54, Tatau, Sixth Street, Earth, Reef, Pineappleade, Fuego 2, Nomad 2, Bamboo 2 and Pescao 2 are classified in heading 6404, HTSUS, and specifically in subheading 6404.19.90, HTSUS, as “Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: Footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics: Other: Other: Valued over $12/pair.” The 2013 column one general rate of duty is 9% ad valorem. You are instructed to DENY the protest, except to the extent reclassification of the merchandise as indicated above results in a net duty reduction and partial allowance. In accordance with Sections IV and VI of the CBP Protest/Petition Processing Handbook (HB 3500-08A, December 2007, pp. 24 and 26), you are to mail this decision, together with the CBP Form 19, to the Protestant no later than 60 days from the date of this letter. Any reliquidation of the entry or entries in accordance with the decision must be accomplished prior to mailing the decision. Sixty days from the date of the decision, the Office International Trade, Regulations and Rulings, will make the decision available to CBP personnel, and to the public on the CBP website at www.cbp.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and other methods of public distribution. Sincerely, Myles B. Harmon, Director Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division

HQ H302976 January 11, 2022 OT:RR:CTF:FTM H302976 TSM CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.90 Mr. Gregory Watts Skechers USA, Inc. 255 S. Sepulveda Blvd. Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 RE: Revocation of NY N285583 and NY N299433; The tariff classification of footwear from China. Dear Mr. Watts: This is in reference to New York Ruling Letter (“NY”) N285583, dated June 6, 2017, concerning the tariff classification of certain footwear. This is also in reference to NY N299433, dated August 23, 2018, also concerning the tariff classification of certain footwear. In those rulings, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) classified the footwear at issue under subheading 6404.19.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“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: Other: Other: Valued over $12/pair.” Upon additional review, we have found this classification to be incorrect. For the reasons set forth below we hereby revoke NY N285583 and NY N299433. Pursuant to section 625(c)(1), Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1625 (c)(1)), as amended by section 623 of Title VI (Customs Modernization) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057), a notice was published in the Customs Bulletin, Volume 53, No. 37, on October 16, 2019, proposing to revoke NY N285583 and NY N299433, and to revoke any treatment accorded to substantially identical transactions.  Five comments opposing the proposed action were received on or before November 15, 2019. FACTS: NY N285583 describes the subject merchandise as follows: Style 80523L is a girl’s, closed-toe, closed-heel, below-the-ankle shoe. You provided the external surface area breakdown of the upper as 55.16 percent textile and 44.84 percent synthetic (rubber or plastics). The shoe has bungee type elastic laces that are threaded through four textile eyelets. It features a padded collar and a padded tongue with a sewn on textile overlay strip on the topside that extends up to form a pull-on tab containing the word Skechers. The shoe has a heel pull-on tab and a synthetic heel overlay with the word Skechers. Embroidered to the lateral side of the shoe is a butterfly and floral motif. It has a hook and loop strap closure at the top of the instep with a label that has the word Skechers. The outer sole is made from 90 percent rubber and 10 percent ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA). The shoe is lightweight with a flexible outer sole. The value is stated to be over $12/pair. An image of footwear Style 80523L is displayed below: NY N299433 describes the subject merchandise as follows: GrandPro Tennis Sneaker Stock # W14150, is a woman’s closed-toe, closed-heel, and below-the-ankle casual shoe. The upper is made from textile material and leather. The textile material upper is embroidered with gold metallic thread depicting foliage. It features a lace-up closure, a leather patch on the tongue, and a leather heel overlay with the brand name Cole Haan. The shoe has a rubber or plastics outer sole. It is not “protective” and does have a foxing or foxing-like band. The shoe is lightweight with a flexible outer sole. An image of footwear Style # W14150 is displayed below: ISSUE: What is the tariff classification of the footwear at issue? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Classification under the HTSUS is made in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (“GRIs”).  GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative section or chapter notes.  In the event that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRIs 2 through 6 may then be applied in order.  The HTSUS provisions under consideration are as follows: 6404 Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: Footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics: 6404.11 Sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: Other: 6404.11.90 Valued over $12/pair * * * 6404.19 Other: Other: 6404.19.90 Valued over $12/pair * * * Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64 provides as follows: 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.  * * * “Footwear Definitions” T.D. 93-88, dated October 25, 1993, provides in relevant part: “Athletic” footwear (sports footwear included in this context) includes: Shoes usable only in the serious pursuit of a particular sport, which have or have provision for attachment of spikes, cleats, clips or the like. Ski, wrestling & boxing boots; cycling shoes; and skating boots w/o skates attached. Tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes (sneakers), training shoes (joggers) and the like whether or not principally used for such games or purposes. It does not include: Shoes that resemble sport shoes but clearly could not be used at all in that sporting activity. Examples include sneakers with a sequined or extensively embroidered uppers. A “slip-on”, except gymnastic slippers. Skate boots with ice or roller skates attached. In NY N285583 and NY N299433, CBP concluded that consistent with the definition of “athletic footwear” in T.D. 93-88, “ ‘athletic’ footwear does not include … sneakers with a sequined or extensively embroidered upper.” Upon additional review, we find that to be incorrect. Although sneakers with a sequined or extensively embroidered uppers are referenced as examples of footwear that is not covered by the T.D. 93-88 definition of “athletic” footwear, we note that the definition also requires the footwear to be such that could clearly not be used at all in a sporting activity. Accordingly, we find that embroidery alone does not preclude footwear from being classified as “Sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like” of subheading 6404.11, HTSUS. Upon further review, we find that the record does not show that the embroidered footwear at issue in NY N285583 and NY N299433 could clearly not be used at all in a sporting activity. Moreover, there is nothing in the construction of the footwear at issue in these rulings that would preclude its use as athletic. We find that the footwear at issue in NY N285583 is suitable for athletic activity based on the following features: it is lightweight and flexible, it has a traction outer sole, an underfoot cushioning, a secure form of closure (consisting of no tie elastic shoelaces and hook and loop strap closure), as well as an overall athletic appearance. With regard to the footwear at issue in NY N299433, we also find that it is suitable for athletic activity based on the following features: it is a sneaker with an overall athletic appearance, it has adequate underfoot cushioning, a secure lace closure, and a flexible rubber/plastic traction outer sole. Therefore, we conclude that although the footwear at issue is embroidered, it meets the T.D. 93-88 definition of “Athletic” footwear. Moreover, it meets the definition of “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like” found in Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64, which provides that athletic footwear may or may not be principally used for athletic games or purposes. Accordingly, we find that the footwear at issue in NY N285583 and NY N299433 is classified in subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, and more specifically in subheading 6404.11.90, 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: Other: Valued over $12/pair.” As noted above, we received five comments opposing the proposed revocation of NY N285583 and NY N299433. Three of the commenters argued that embroidered footwear is not “athletic footwear” pursuant to T.D. 93-88. Specifically, one of the commenters argued that embroidered footwear is excepted by T.D. 93-88 from classification as “athletic footwear.” One other commenter claimed that pursuant to T.D. 93-88, extensively embroidered footwear is, by definition, incapable of athletic use. One more commenter further argued that CBP’s determination that the shoes at issue “are suitable for athletic activity” because they have flexible outsoles with traction, cushioned insoles and a secure closure, is a definition of athletic footwear that does not exist in the HTSUS or T.D. 93-88. With regard to the above arguments, we note that T.D. 93-88 provides in relevant part that athletic footwear does not include shoes that resemble sport shoes but clearly could not be used at all in a sporting activity. Examples include sneakers with a sequined or extensively embroidered uppers. Accordingly, consistent with T.D. 93-88, sneakers with sequined or extensively embroidered uppers cannot be classified as “athletic footwear” only if they are also such that could not be used at all in a sporting activity. As discussed in our decision above, embroidery alone does not preclude footwear from being classified as “Sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like” of subheading 6404.11, HTSUS. With regard to the argument concerning the definition of “athletic footwear,” we note that both T.D. 93-88 and Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64, HTSUS, in relevant part define “athletic footwear” as “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like, whether or not principally used for such athletic games of purposes.” As discussed above, T.D. 93-88 further provides that athletic footwear does not include shoes that resemble sport shoes but clearly could not be used at all in a sporting activity. Consistent with this definition, we find that the footwear at issue is akin to “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like” and is “suitable for athletic activity” because it has features such as flexible outsoles with traction, underfoot cushioning, a secure lace closure, as well as an overall athletic appearance. In addition to the above, one commenter also argued that the principle of ejusdem generis requires anything falling under the general term “or the like,” found in the T.D. 93-88 definition of “athletic footwear,” to possess the same essential characteristics as the specified enumerated articles. However, according to the commenter, the presence of embroidery suggests that embroidered footwear does not possess the characteristics of athletic footwear. The commenter referenced HQ H265479, dated March 28, 2016, in which CBP concluded that certain shoes were suitable for “fast footwork” since they did not have any external decorations, such as sequins or beads that could otherwise come loose and fall off. The commenter further stated that footwear with extensive embroidery is not suitable for “fast footwork,” which is the essential characteristic of all athletic footwear, according to HQ 952228, dated June 7, 1993, and other rulings. Moreover, this commenter argued that extensive embroidery on footwear presents an injury hazard, rendering the shoes unsuitable for use during a sporting activity. Upon review, we agree with the commenter that the principle of ejusdem generis requires that the items falling under the general term “or the like” need to possess the same essential characteristics as the specified enumerated articles. However, as discussed above we find that the footwear at issue falls under the term “or the like” and is “suitable for athletic activity” because it has certain features found in the athletic footwear. We do not find that embroidery negatively impacts these athletic features or presents an injury hazard. While suitability for “fast footwork” is a characteristic of athletic footwear, as CBP determined in HQ 952228, we do not find that footwear with extensive embroidery is not suitable for fast footwork. In this regard, we also note that embroidery is not similar to external decorations such as sequins or beads that could come lose and fall off, presenting an injury hazard. Even if one or more of the threads were to come loose, such threads would remain attached to the footwear and not affect its suitability for fast footwork. One of the commenters also argued that footwear should not be defined as “athletic footwear” unless it is marketed as such. Specifically, the commenter claimed that the definition of athletic footwear should include factors other than the general appearance and several other characteristics, such as foxing or lightweight sole. The commenter claimed that footwear marketing should also be taken into account. Similarly, another commenter also noted that embroidered footwear is not marketed as athletic footwear. In this regard, consistent with discussion above and the definition found in T.D. 93-88 and Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64, HTSUS, we find that the relevant considerations are whether the footwear at issue has features that would qualify it as “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes (sneakers) and the like,” and whether it is such that “resemble[s] sport shoes but clearly could not be used at all in [a] sporting activity.” Accordingly, we conclude that at issue in this context are footwear characteristics, not the way footwear is marketed. In addition, several commenters argued that embroidered footwear is not athletic because there are no, or very few, examples of actual use of such footwear as athletic. Specifically, one of the commenters argued that there are almost no examples of actual shoes with athletic qualities being offered for sale in athletic specialty shops, or used in gyms, courts, etc. Further, this commenter claimed that extensively embroidered footwear has never been understood by the trade to have “general athletic appearance,” because it is not sought out by or offered to consumers as athletic. Such footwear, the commenter further argued, is produced for casual use and is a type of modern casual footwear, which has some traits similar to athletic footwear, but does not have the technical aspects of modern athletic construction. Similarly, one other commenter argued that embroidered footwear belongs in the category of fashion sneakers, which share some traits with athletic footwear, but are not intended for athletic purposes. The commenter also noted that there are only a few examples of fashion sneakers being used for athletic purposes. One more commenter claimed that since the tariff term “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like” defines footwear by use, classification as athletic requires suitability for use and some actual use of the footwear in pursuit of an athletic activity. According to this commenter, suitability for use means actually, practically and commercially fit for such use, with the mere possibility for use being insufficient. Further, one commenter also argued that while any type of footwear could theoretically be capable of athletic use, such use would clearly be fugitive. According to this commenter, even footwear that could clearly be used for athletic purposes, if such use is out of the norm, is not “athletic footwear” for tariff classification purposes, especially if there is an overwhelming amount of purely decorative fun and fashion features. Another commenter also argued that while Additional U.S. Note 2 states that athletic footwear is classifiable as such “whether or not principally used for such athletic games or purposes,” that does not mean that a fugitive use would be determinative, and just because a shoe theoretically could be used as athletic footwear because of the presence of flexible outer soles and other features, extensive embroidery precludes its classification as athletic footwear. With regard to the above comments, we disagree. In this regard, we note that to qualify under Additional U.S. Note 2 and T.D. 93-88 as “athletic footwear,” evidence of actual use is not necessary. Contrary to the above arguments, we find that the relevant considerations are whether the footwear at issue has features that would qualify it as “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes (sneakers) and the like,” and whether it could be used for athletic activity, even if such use is not principal. Only embroidered footwear that “could not be used at all in [a] sporting activity” would not qualify as “athletic footwear” under U.S. Note 2 and T.D. 93-88. As discussed above, we also disagree that embroidery alone precludes footwear from being classified as “athletic footwear.” HOLDING: By application of GRIs 1 and 6, we find that the footwear at issue in NY N285583 and NY N299433 is classified under heading 6404, HTSUS, and specifically under subheading 6404.11.90, 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: Other: Valued over $12/pair.” The 2021 column one, general rate of duty is 20% ad valorem. EFFECT ON OTHER RULINGS: NY N285583, dated June 6, 2017, and NY N299433, dated August 23, 2018, are REVOKED, in accordance with the above analysis. In accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c), this ruling will become effective 60 days after its publication in the Customs Bulletin. Sincerely, For Craig T. Clark, Director Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20229 U.S. Customs and Border Protection HQ H285615 November 23, 2020 OT:RR:CTF:FTM H285615 TJS CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.90 Mr. Sean Connor Under Armour, Inc. 1020 Hull Street Baltimore, MD 21230 RE: Reconsideration of NY N279073; Tariff Classification of footwear from China Dear Mr. Connor: This letter is in response to your request of February 28, 2017, for reconsideration of New York Ruling Letter (“NY”) N279073, dated September 30, 2016, issued to Under Armour, Inc., as it pertains to the tariff classification of certain footwear under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). In that ruling, U.S. Customs & Border Protection (“CBP”) classified the subject footwear in heading 6404, HTSUS, and subheading 6404.19.20, HTSUS, which provides for: “[f]ootwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: Footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics: Other: Footwear with open toes or open heels; footwear of the slip-on type, that is held to the foot without the use of laces or buckles or other fasteners, the foregoing except footwear of subheading 6404.19.20 and except footwear having a foxing or foxing-like band wholly or almost wholly of rubber or plastics applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper: Other: Other.” For the reasons stated below, we are revoking NY N279073. In reaching this decision, we have also considered arguments presented in a supplemental submission submitted by your legal counsel on August 16, 2017. This decision is also based on our inspection of samples included with your original ruling request and with your reconsideration request. Pursuant to section 625(c)(1), Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. §1625(c)(1)), as amended by section 623 of Title VI (Customs Modernization) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057), a notice of the proposed action was published in the Customs Bulletin, Vol. 54, No. 41, on October 21, 2020. No comments were received in response to the notice. FACTS: In NY N279073, the merchandise was described as follows: [T]he submitted sample, identified as style number/name 1288065 UA W Drift RN Mineral, is a woman’s, light-weight, closed-toe/closed-heel, below-the-ankle shoe, with a flexible outer sole of rubber or plastics. The external surface area of the upper is predominantly textile material. It is a slip-on shoe that does not have a separately attached tongue. The mostly unsecured leather overlay, which incorporates the eye stays and threaded laces, is stitched to the upper with a few stitches on the medial and lateral sides. It is lasted at the sole, extends toward the heel of the shoe, and is stitched near the back of the heel. This semi-attached overlay constitutes an accessory or reinforcement and not considered in the external surface area measurements. The shoe features a rubber/plastic toe cap, a leather heel patch, and a pull tab. The shoe does not have a foxing-like band. The rubber or plastics outer sole accounts for more than 10 percent of the total weight of the shoe. You provided an F.O.B. value of $21.41 per pair. In addition to the features described above, the samples contain a cushioned collar and a midsole made of ethylene-vinyl acetate (EVA), a lightweight and soft foam. The outsole is made of durable rubber material and incorporates rubber pods and four rows of flex grooves. In your supplemental submission, you state that the shoes are designed and marketed as running shoes. ISSUE: What is the tariff classification of the subject footwear? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Classification under the HTSUS is made in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI).  GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative section or chapter notes.  In the event that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRI 2 through 6 may then be applied in order.  The HTSUS provisions under consideration are as follows: 6404: Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: Footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics: 6404.11: Sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: Other: 6404.11.90: Valued over $12/pair: For women: 6404.11.9050: Other. * * * * * 6404.19: Other: Footwear with open toes or open heels; footwear of the slip-on type, that is held to the foot without the use of laces or buckles or other fasteners, the foregoing except footwear of subheading 6404.19.20 and except footwear having a foxing or foxing-like band wholly or almost wholly of rubber or plastics applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper: Other: 6404.19.39: Other: Other: 6404.19.3960: For women. * * * * * Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64, HTSUS, provides as follows: 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. * * * * * Treasury Decision (“T.D.”) 93-88, which provides “Footwear Definitions,” states, in pertinent part, that “athletic” footwear includes: “Athletic” footwear (sports footwear included in this context) includes: 1. Shoes usable only in the serious pursuit of a particular sport, which have or have provision for attachment of spikes, cleats, clips or the like. 2. Ski, wrestling & boxing boots; cycling shoes; and skating boots w/o skates attached. 3. Tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes (sneakers), training shoes (joggers) and the like whether or not principally used for such athletic games or purposes. It does not include: Shoes that resemble sport shoes but clearly could not be used at all in that sporting activity. Examples include sneakers with a sequined or extensively embroidered uppers. A “slip-on”, except gymnastic slippers. Skate boots with ice or roller skates attached. Footwear Definitions, Treas. Dec. 93-88, 27 Cust. B. & Dec. No. 46 (Oct. 25, 1993). T.D. 93-88 further provides that a “slip-on” includes: A boot which must be pulled on. Footwear with elastic gores which must be stretched to get it on or with elastic sewn into the top edge of the fabric of the upper. Footwear with a shoe lace around the top of the upper which is clearly not functional, i.e., the lace will not be tied and untied when putting it on or taking it off. It does not include any boot or shoe with any laces, buckles, straps, snaps, or other closure, which are probably closed, i.e. tied, buckled, snapped, etc., after the wearer puts it on. Id. * * * * * In your request for reconsideration, you state that while you agree with the majority of the assessment in NY N279073, you assert that the shoe is not a “slip-on.” You state that while the shoe is not designed with a separate tongue, the shoelaces are an essential element to the function of the shoe. You further state that the shoe is designed to be used as a running shoe and the shoelaces serve as a tightening mechanism, which are necessary to secure the foot and prevent the runner from injuring his or her ankle. You assert that the shoe is properly classified in subheading 6404.11.90, HTSUS, which provides for “[f]ootwear 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: Other: Valued over $12/pair.” The dispute is at the six-digit level of classification. The footwear is described by the terms of heading 6404, HTSUS, which provides for “[f]ootwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials.” At issue here is whether the footwear under consideration is “athletic” footwear within the meaning of Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64, HTSUS, and classified in subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, as “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like,” or whether the footwear is classified in subheading 6404.19, HTSUS, as “other” footwear. Subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, provides for “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like.” The principle of ejusdem generis applies to provisions containing the phrase “and the like.” In an ejusdem generis analysis, “where an enumeration of specific things is followed by a general word or phrase, the general word or phrase is held to refer to things of the same kind as those specified.” Deckers Corp. v. United States, 752 F.3d 949, 952 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Deckers II”) (citing Sports Graphics, Inc. v. United States, 24 F.3d 1390, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). In Deckers Corp. v. United States (“Deckers I”), 532 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2008), aff’d, Deckers II, 752 F.3d 949, on the issue of whether Teva Sport Sandals were classified in subheading 6404.11 as “athletic footwear,” the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated that to determine the essential characteristic of the specified enumerated articles, “courts may consider attributes such as the purpose, character, material, design, and texture.” Deckers I, 532 F.3d at 1316. In regard to the particular exemplars of heading 6404.11, HTSUS, the court determined that “the fundamental feature that the exemplars share is the design, specifically the enclosed upper, which contains features that stabilize the foot, and protect against abrasion and impact.” Id. at 1317. Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64 states that athletic footwear is classified in subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, “whether or not principally used for such athletic games or purposes.” CBP has interpreted this Note to mean that shoes need not be used solely for athletic purposes, but also those shoes that share appearance, qualities, and character with the named exemplars are classified there. See Headquarters Ruling Letter (“HQ”) H236274 (Sept. 17, 2015) (classifying “athleisure” shoes as athletic); and HQ 953882 (Sept. 24, 1993) (holding that hiking boots were not “like” the exemplars). Still, it has been CBP’s position that in order for footwear to be classified as athletic footwear under subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, it must be constructed for an activity that requires fast footwork or extensive running. See HQ 964625 (Sept. 10, 2001) (“All the exemplars are used in sports which require fast footwork or extensive running.”); and NY N154085 (Apr. 4, 2011). Thus, when determining whether footwear is classified as athletic footwear under subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, CBP looks at various features and characteristics including, but not limited to, overall appearance, materials, and construction of the upper and outer sole. Some of the features or characteristics of athletic footwear CBP has consistently included are: a lightweight upper, a lightweight, flexible outer sole that provides traction, lace-up, or some other type of secure closure, underfoot cushioning, collar (padded or not), tongue (padded or not), toe bumpers, heel counters/stabilizers, and ventilation holes. See HQ H265479 (Mar. 28, 2016); NY N310350 (Mar. 26, 2020); NY N020906 (Jan. 9, 2008); and NY M82301 (May 26, 2006). However, athletic footwear need not exhibit all of these features. See NY N218203 (June 6, 2012); and NY N154085 (Apr. 4, 2011). T.D. 93-88 excludes “slip-ons” from the definition of athletic footwear. It also states that shoes with laces, which are probably tied after the wearer puts them on, are not considered “slip-ons.” In Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. United States, 844 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (CIT 2012), concerning the classification of UGG boots, the Court of International Trade (“CIT”) determined that “[t]he lack of laces or fasteners is the essential characteristic uniting each dictionary definition for “slip-on” and “[t]he definitions, as a whole, indicate that it is this lack of any kind of fasteners that allows for the characteristic ease with which slip-ons can be put on and taken off.” Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. United States, 844 F. Supp. 2d 1324, 1332 (CIT 2012), aff’d, 714 F.3d 1363 (2013). The CIT further found that the definition of “slip-on” in T.D. 93-88 is persuasive and warrants deference, and is “centered around the characterization of slip-ons as footwear that lacks functional fasteners.” Id. Therefore, whether the shoes under consideration are “slip-ons” depends on the functionality of the shoelaces such that the shoes can be put on and taken off with ease regardless of whether the shoelaces are tied. Pursuant to T.D. 93-88, CBP considers shoelaces that do not need to be tied or untied in order to put on or remove the shoe as non-functional. See NY N285586 (May 30, 2017); NY N284080 (Apr. 4, 2017); and NY N283616 (Mar. 15, 2017) (determining that laces were non-functional because the wearer needed only to spread apart the upper to put on or remove the shoe). However, shoelaces that are tied after the shoe is put on are considered functional, as they impede the wearer’s ability to easily slip-on and off the shoe. While the absence of a separately attached tongue is often a feature of a slip-on shoe, it does not preclude classification as “athletic” footwear. For example, in NY N281527, dated January 20, 2017, CBP classified a man’s shoe, identified as style # 54358, and a women’s shoe, identified as style # 14811, in subheading 6404.11.90, HTSUS. Style # 54358 was a man’s closed toe/closed heel, below-the-ankle shoe with a foxing-like band and an outer sole of rubber/plastics. The style had a general athletic appearance. The external surface area of the upper was predominantly textile (approximately 72%) and had a lace-up closure with five pairs of textile eyelet stays. The shoe had no separately defined tongue, rather, the extra material under the functional laces formed a type of gusseted tongue when tied. CBP determined that the extra material forming the gusseted tongue rendered a loose fit if worn without tightening the laces. Style #14811 was a woman’s, closed toe/closed heel, below-the-ankle, athletic shoe with a foxing-like band and an outer sole of rubber or plastics. This shoe also featured a gusseted tongue under a functional lace-up closure. Because the laces needed tightened for both styles to be used properly, the shoes were not considered slip-ons. Like the shoes in NY N281527, the subject footwear can be slipped on and off while the laces remain untied. Although a gusseted tongue does not form when the shoelaces of the subject footwear are tied, we find that the shoelaces are functional because they are tightened after the wearer puts on the shoe. The shoelaces must be untied to put the shoe on the foot because the shoe does not easily slip on and off while the shoelaces are tightened. This is due to the leather overlay, which incorporates the eye stays and threaded laces, and is stitched to the upper on the medial and lateral sides. Importantly, the leather overlays do not stretch such that when the laces are tied, the overlays are taut and secure. Furthermore, the shoelaces are not futile. When tightened, they provide functionality by further securing the shoe to the wearer’s foot so that the user has sufficient support and can engage in activities requiring extensive running or fast footwork without worrying about the shoe slipping off the foot. In light of the forgoing, we do not consider these shoes “slip-ons” and, as such, they are not precluded from classification as athletic footwear. Upon review and examination of the footwear at issue in NY N279073, we conclude that it has the general appearance and many of the construction features present in athletic footwear. In particular, the shoe has a breathable textile upper and a lightweight, flexible outer sole that is treaded to provide traction. It also has foot cushioning with the EVA midsole, padding at the collar, a rubber/plastic toe cap, and a plastic heel counter. In addition to the lace closure system that secures the footwear to the foot, the upper with the leather overlays help keep the foot in place when the shoelaces are tightened to enable the wearer to engage in athletic activity. The footwear is also marketed as running shoes. We find that the footwear at issue is indeed ejusdem generis with the named exemplars in subheading 6404.11, HTSUS. In view of the foregoing, we find that the subject footwear, 1288065 UA W Drift RN Mineral, is athletic footwear of subheading 6404.11, HTSUS. Specifically, the subject footwear is classified under subheading 6404.11.9050, HTSUS, which provides for “[f]ootwear 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: Other: Valued over $12/pair: For women: Other.” Therefore, we revoke NY N279073. HOLDING: By application of GRI 1 and Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64, HTSUS, we find that the subject footwear is classified under subheading 6404.11.9050, HTSUS, which provides for “[f]ootwear 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: Other: Valued over $12/pair: For women: Other.” The column one, general rate of duty is 20% ad valorem. EFFECT ON OTHER RULINGS: NY N279073, dated September 30, 2016, is hereby REVOKED. In accordance with 19 U.S.C. § 1625(c), this ruling will become effective 60 days after its publication in the Customs Bulletin. Sincerely, For Craig T. Clark, Director Commercial Trade Facilitation Division

HQ 956466 August 29 1994 CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 956466 DFC CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.70 Ms. Martha J. Waldner, Import Supervisor Unitrans International Corporation 709 South Hindry Ave. Inglewood, California 90301 RE: Footwear; Sneaker, Highlander; Band, foxing-like DD 890452 modified Dear Ms. Waldner: This is in reference to District Ruling Letter (DD) 890452 dated October 19, 1993, addressed to you, concerning, in part, the tariff classification of a sneaker produced in Portugal. We have reviewed that ruling and determined that with respect to the sneaker, it is in error. Pursuant to section 625, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1625) as amended by section 623 of Title VI (Customs Modernization) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Pub L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057,2186(1993) (hereinafter "section 625"), notice of the proposed modification of DD 890452 was published on July 27, 1994, in the CUSTOMS BULLETIN, Volume 28, Number 30. FACTS: The merchandise, identified as a "Highlander" sneaker, is similar to a training shoe. It has a canvas upper, rubber sole, and a 1.5 centimeter wide rubber foxing-like band molded at the sole and overlapping the upper. In DD 890452 Customs ruled that the "Highlander" sneaker is classifiable under subheading 6404.19.60, HTSUS, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials, other, valued over $3 but not over $6.50/pair, having soles (or midsoles, if any) of rubber or plastics which are affixed to the upper exclusively with an adhesive (any midsoles also being affixed exclusively to one another and to the sole with an adhesive), the foregoing except footwear having a foxing or a foxing-like band applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper. . . . The applicable rate of duty for this provision is 37.5% ad valorem. ISSUE: Does the presence of a foxing-like band on the sneaker preclude its classification under subheading 6404.19.60, HTSUS? LAW AND ANAlYSIS: Classification of goods under the HTSUS is governed by the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's). GRI 1 provides that "classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes, and provided such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to [the remaining GRI's taken in order]." In other words, classification is governed first by the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes. Classification of the sneaker under subheading 6404.19.60, HTSUS, was in error because, by the terms of this subheading, footwear having a foxing-like band is specifically excluded from classification thereunder. Additional U.S. Note 2, HTSUS, which is relevant here, reads as follows: 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. Inasmuch as the "Highlander" sneaker is a training shoe, it is our opinion that it is classifiable under subheading 6404.11.70, 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, tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like, having a foxing-like band and valued over $3 but not over $6.50/pair. HOLDING: The "Highlander" sneaker is dutiable at the rate of 90 cents per pair plus 37.5% ad valorem under subheading 6404.11.70, HTSUS. Accordingly, DD 890452 is modified to reflect the correct classification of the "Highlander" sneaker. In accordance with section 625, this ruling will become effective 60 days after publication in the CUSTOMS BULLETIN. Publication of rulings or decisions pursuant to section 625 does not constitute a change of practice or position in accordance with section 177.10(c), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 127.10(c)(1)). Sincerely, John Durant, Director 

HQ H236274 September 17, 2015 OT: RR: CTF: TCM: H236274 HvB CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.89 Michelle Fudalik Senior Customs Compliance Specialist Stride Rite Sourcing International, Inc. 191 Spring Street P.O. Box 9191 Lexington, MA 02420 Re: Request for Reconsideration of NY N231840; Classification of Men’s Lace-up Sneaker Dear Ms. Fudalik: This is in response to your letter, dated November 9, 2012, in which you requested reconsideration of New York Ruling Letter (NY) N231840. This decision takes into account your telephonic meeting with members of my staff on August 10, 2015, and your supplemental submission dated August 20, 2015. Your request included a sample of the merchandise, which is being returned to you with this letter. In NY N231840, dated September 18, 2012, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) described the merchandise, stock #KM-FA13-001H, as a men’s lace-up sneaker with a rubber or plastics outer sole and a textile upper that does not cover the ankle. CBP classified the subject merchandise in subheading 6404.11.89, 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 plastic: Sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: Other: Valued over $6.50 but not over $12/pair: Other.” In an email to CBP, dated January 10, 2013, correcting your original claim that the shoe will cost in excess of $12/pair, you submit that the merchandise is provided under subheading 6404.19.89, HTSUS, as “Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: Footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastic: Other: Other: Valued over $6.50 but not over $12/pair: Other.” A sample of the subject shoe was reviewed by this office. The sample consists of a Men’s Keds® shoe which is marked as “The Champion”. It also has a textile upper, laces which together with the enclosed upper and back provide structure, and a rubber sole that provides traction. The outersole components are lightweight and flexible. We hereby affirm NY N231840 because the subject shoes share physical characteristics and attributes with the exemplars of subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, which provides for “sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like.” The principle of ejusdem generis applies to provisions containing the phrase “and the like”. In an ejusdem generis analysis, "where an enumeration of specific things is followed by a general word or phrase, the general word or phrase is held to refer to things of the same kind as those specified." Deckers Corp. v. United States, 752 F.3d 949, 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014) citing Sports Graphics, Inc. v. United States, 24 F.3d 1390, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In Deckers Corporation v. the United States (Deckers I), 532 F. 3d 1212 (Fed .Cir. 2008), aff’d Deckers Corp. v. United States (Deckers II), 753 F 3d 949 (Fed. Cir. 2014), on the issue of whether Teva Sport Sandals were classified in subheading 6404.11 as “athletic footwear”, the Court of Federal Appeals stated: “To determine the essential characteristics, courts may consider attributes such as the purpose, character, material, design and texture.” Deckers I., 532 F. 3d 1312 at 1315-1316. In NY N231840, we observed “[t]he shoe is lightweight with a flexible sole, has a foxing or a foxing-like band and is generally athletic in appearance.” In NY D81064, dated August 17, 1998, we explained that the weight of the shoe and the relative flexibility of the outer sole enabling the wearer to participate in activities requiring fast footwork and running are among the factors to consider whether a shoe qualifies as an “athleisure shoe.” You do not disagree that the shoe is comfortable and is suitable for casual use. In your supplemental submission dated August 20, 2015, you submit that the subject shoe should be classified as a “casual shoe” because it lacks “arch support, shock absorbers, toe bumpers, padding around the heel, ankle, and tongue, underfoot cushioning, and significant traction on the sole.” Your submission includes print-outs from online retailers showing the subject Keds Champion shoe sold as a “casual shoe.” However, you do not provide any citations for this assertion. In response, we note that term “casual shoe” is not at issue, nor is it a tariff term. Rather, what is at issue is whether the subject Keds shoe shares physical characteristics with the exemplars of subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, as “athletic footwear”. Like the named exemplar “tennis shoes,” the subject shoe is appropriate for casual use. In your request, you concede that the subject Ked shoe is light and flexible. You argue, however, that “it does not have the support and cushioning expected in athletic footwear” and accordingly is not classifiable as “athletic footwear.” Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64 states that athletic footwear is classified in subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, “whether or not principally used for such athletic games or purposes.” CBP has interpreted this Note to mean that shoes need not be used solely for athletic purposes but also those shoes that share appearance, qualities and character with the named exemplars are classified there. See Headquarters Ruling Letter (HQ) 953882, dated September 24, 1993 on “athleisure” shoes, aff’d Deckers I, 532 F. 3d. at 1316. Thus, a shoe may be designed for casual use and still be classified as athletic footwear. You also submit that the subject Ked shoe has a heel and is thus not classifiable as athletic footwear. In support, you cite to HQ 953882 supra, in which we ruled that a hiking boot was not classifiable as athletic footwear. In that case, we noted that the subject boot had a “distinct heel.” This is not the case with the instant shoe. Physical examination and measurement of the sample presented found an approximately 3 mm variation in the surface of the outer sole that faces the ground. It is this office’s opinion that the outer sole of the instant shoe does not contain a heel. Furthermore, in HQ 953882, we noted that the boot had other features, such as an upper extending over the ankle and a very thick sole, which are not characteristic of footwear of subheading 6404.11, HTSUS. For all the aforementioned reasons, we hereby affirm NY N231840. Accordingly, the subject men’s Ked lace-up sneaker is classified in subheading 6404.11.89, HTSUS, as “Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile material: Footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics: Sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: Other: Valued over $6.50 but not over $12/pair: Other.” Sincerely, Myles B. Harmon, Director Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division

N154085 April 4, 2011 CLA-2-64:OT:RR:NC:N4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.9050 Ms. Rebecca Montgomery New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc. 10 International Way Lawrence, MA 01843-1064 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Ms. Montgomery: In your letter dated March 14, 2011 you requested a tariff classification ruling for an “athletic-looking” shoe. The submitted half-pair sample identified by you as a women’s “walking” shoe, style WW695, is a below-the-ankle “athletic” shoe with a molded rubber/plastics outer sole. The upper, as stated by you, is composed predominately of textile material and has a functional shoelace closure which contrary to your assertion, secures the shoe to the wearer’s foot when tightened and tied. The shoe does not constitute a “slip-on” for tariff classification purposes. You state that the F.O.B. value is over $12.00/pair and suggest classification under subheading 6404.19.9060, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for footwear other than tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like. We disagree with this suggested classification. The shoe features certain characteristics of athletic footwear such as a foxing or foxing-like band, a flexible outer sole, a secure means of closure and a general athletic appearance. Chapter 64, HTSUS, Additional U.S. Note 2, states: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 general, this office interprets this note to mean that “athletic” covers not only tennis, basketball, training and gym shoes, but also shoes that are like those named exemplars. We further interpret “like” to mean that which has the same, or nearly the same appearance, qualities or characteristics as the named exemplars. In addition, it is further Customs position that in order for footwear to be classified as athletic footwear in 6404.11 HTSUS, it must be constructed for an activity that requires fast footwork or extensive running. In this regard, we conclude that the shoe looks, functions and has the characteristics of athletic footwear. The applicable subheading for style WW695 will be 6404.11.9050, HTSUS, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued over $12/pair: for women: other. The rate of duty will be 20% ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. 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, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division

N010512 May 16, 2007 CLA-2-64:RR:SP:247 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.7090 Ms. Susan Morelli Converse One High Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China. Dear Ms. Morellii: In your letter dated April 26, 2007, you requested a tariff classification ruling for an infant’s size 7, high-top “Chuck Taylor All Star” athletic shoe (SKU 0417BY001). The applicable subheading for “Chuck Taylor All Star” athletic shoe (SKU 0417BY001) will be 6404.11.7090, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (HTSUS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics and uppers of textile material: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued over $3 but not over $6.50/pair: other, other. The general rate of duty will be 90 cents/pair plus 37.5 percent ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. 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, Richard Foley at 646-733-3042. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division

N041788 November 3, 2008 CLA-2-64:RR:SP:247 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6403.99.6040, 6403.99.9031, 6404.11.9020 Mr. Edward E. Foster Cole Haan One Cole Haan Drive Yarmouth, ME 04096 RE: The tariff classification of footwear with from China. Dear Mr. Foster: In your letter dated October 13, 2008, you requested a tariff classification ruling for four styles of “sports inspired” footwear. You have submitted samples identified as Style C07424, Style D27724, Style C07410 and C07418. Style C07424 is described as men’s textile upper leisure shoe with a rubber sole and foxing-like band valued over $12/pair. The submitted sample is a man’s size 8.5 lace-up, below-the-ankle “sneaker” style shoe with a flexible rubber/plastics outer sole. Additional U.S. Note 2, Chapter 64, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), provides that 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) whether or not principally used for such athletic games or purposes. It is the position of USCBP that athletic footwear under subheading 6404.11, HTSUS, must be constructed for an activity that requires fast footwork or extensive running. However, it is not necessary that the footwear be principally used for that activity. Therefore, Style C07424 is athletic footwear for classification purposes. The applicable subheading for Style C07424 will be 6404.11.9020, HTSUS, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics and uppers of textile materials: Sports footwear: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: valued over $12/pair, for men: other. The rate of duty will be 20 percent ad valorem. Style D27724 is described as a women’s cow leather upper leisure shoe with a rubber sole. You state that the shoe is modeled after a running shoe but lacks basic support items like a pronation device. The submitted sample is a women’s size 6B lace-up, below-the-ankle athletic shoe. The applicable subheading for Style D27724 will be 6403.99.9031, HTSUS, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics and uppers of leather: other: other: for other persons: valued over $2.50/pair, tennis shoes, basketball shoes, and the like, for women, other. The rate of duty will be 10 percent ad valorem. Style C07410 and Style C07418 are described as men’s cow leather upper, rubber sole leisure shoes. You state that both shoes are modeled after court shoes but are highly unlikely to ever be used in this capacity. The submitted samples are lace-up, below-the-ankle athletic shoes with foxing or foxing-like bands. Style C07410 is marked inside the tongue indicating Men’s Size 8 ½ M. Style C07418 is, as you note, not marked with either a size or country of origin marking. You state that the production footwear will be marketed with the country of origin and the word “Men’s” preceding the size. The applicable subheading for Style C07410 and Style C07418 (indication men’s gender sizing) will be 6403.99.6040, HTSUS, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics and uppers of leather: other: other: for men, youths and boys: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, and the like, for men, other. The rate of duty will be 8.5 percent ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. 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, Richard Foley at 646-733-3042. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division

N108185 June 23, 2010 CLA-2-64:OT:RR:NC:N4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.8060 Mr. Randy Scurlock Coogi 60 Metro Way, Suite 2 Secaucus, NJ 07094 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Mr. Scurlock: In your undated letter, you requested a tariff classification ruling for Tyvek footwear. The submitted sample identified as style name “Sensation,” is an above-the-ankle lace-up sneaker with an outer sole composed of rubber/plastics. You state that the Tyvek upper is formed by a fully integrated process using polyethylene fibers which are first flash spun, then bonded together by heat and pressure, without the use of binders, sizers or fillers. These polyethylene fibers are considered “textile” for tariff purposes. The sneaker features a foxing or foxing-like band which overlaps the upper by ¼” or more and has an F.O.B. value of $7.50/pair. The applicable subheading for style name “Sensation,” will be 6404.11.8060, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (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: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued over $6.50 but not over $12.00/pair: for women. The rate of duty will be 90 cents/pair + 20% ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. 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, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division

HQ 082739 November 24, 1989 CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 082739 WAW CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.2060 Ms. Jane Sheridan Import Department Pagoda Trading Company, Inc. 1950 Craig Road St. Louis, MO 63146 RE: Classification of a woman's athletic shoe Your Style Number: 90004 Dear Ms. Sheridan: This ruling is in response to your letter of April 25, 1988, requesting the tariff classification of a woman's athletic shoe under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA). The sample item will be imported from Taiwan. FACTS: The sample merchandise is a woman's athletic shoe with a nylon upper. The upper has split leather overlays around the toe, along the sides, around the heel and throat, and along the eyelets. In addition, there are two Velcro-type closures of split leather across the instep that are designed to tighten or loosen the shoe on the foot. The bottom of the shoe consists of an EVA wedge midsole and a cemented-on rubber outer sole which overlaps the upper at the toe. ISSUE: Whether the Velcro-type closures should be considered part of the external surface area of the shoe for tariff purposes? LAW AND ANALYSIS: The General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's) set forth the manner in which merchandise is to be classified under the HTSUSA. GRI 1 requires that classification be determined first according to the terms of the headings of the tariff and any relative section or chapter notes and, unless otherwise required, according to the remaining GRI's, taken in order. In the instant case, we find one heading within the nomenclature whose terms specifically include the article at issue. Subheading 6404.11, HTSUSA, provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: Sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like. Since the sample article is an athletic shoe with an outer sole of rubber it is properly classifiable within subheading 6404.11, HTSUSA. To determine the constituent material of the upper of a shoe for tariff purposes Legal Note 4(a) to Chapter 64 provides the following: (a) 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 the subject merchandise, the Velcro-type closures across the instep of the shoe are attachments designed to tighten or loosen the shoe on the foot. Thus, it is clear that pursuant to Legal Note 4(a) the Velcro-type closures are excluded from the computation of the "external surface" of the upper in determining the classification of the shoe at the six-digit international subdivision. The question that we are being asked to address is whether the Velcro-type straps should be included under the United States subdivision at the eight-digit level. Subheading 6404.11.20, HTSUSA, provides for 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. It is clear in this case that the subject merchandise is properly classifiable under subheading 6404.11.20, HTSUSA, since even without including the Velcro-type closures, over 50 percent of the external surface area of the upper is leather. Thus, the question is whether in cases where the Velcro-type closure will be a determining factor in the 50 percent leather measurement they should be included as part of the external surface area under subheading 6404.11.20, HTSUSA. Customs has previously ruled that regular shoelaces should not be included as "accessories or reinforcements" in the determination of the external surface area of a shoe under subheading 6404.11.20, HTSUSA. See HRL 081305, dated March 10, 1988. It is Customs position, however, that the Velcro-type closures which close the shoe more closely resemble buckles, which are specifically enumerated in Legal Note 4(a), rather than shoelaces. In addition, subheading 6404.11.20, HTSUSA, specifically includes rather than excludes any leather accessories or reinforcements such as those mentioned in Legal Note 4(a) for purposes of computing the external surface area. Accordingly, it is the opinion of this office that the surface of the Velcro-type straps should be included in the computation of the external surface area of the shoe when "accessories or reinforcements" are included in the U.S. tariff subdivision of the international system. In computing the external surface area of the shoe, Customs recommends that these Velcro-type straps be measured with the strap closed in the manner in which they would be by a person with feet of average width. Furthermore, it is Customs position that only the outer surface of the straps and not the material hidden underneath the straps should be counted towards the "external surface" area under subheading 6404.11.20, HTSUSA. HOLDING: The sample article is properly classifiable under subheading 6404.11.2060, HTSUSA, 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. The applicable rate of duty is 10.5 percent ad valorem. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division

N184377 October 13, 2011 CLA-2-64:OT:RR:NC:N4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.8090 Mr. Wing L. Cheung Marubeni America Corporation 375 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10035 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Mr. Cheung: In your ruling letter dated September 13, 2011, you requested a tariff classification ruling for children’s footwear. Pictures, a detailed description, and an interim footwear invoice were submitted with your request. The item, identified as “Child 10 Wagara”, is a child’s closed toe/closed heel athletic-style shoe with rubber/plastic outer soles. The uppers are made of 90 percent textile and 10 percent rubber/plastic, do not cover the ankle, and are secured to the wearer’s foot with a hook and loop strap closure at the top. You state the shoe does not have a metal toe cap or a foxing or a foxing-like band. From the pictures submitted, the shoe appears to have a foxing or foxing-like band, although in this instance, would not affect classification. The item is valued at $11.70 per pair. The applicable subheading for this child’s shoe, identified as style name “Child 10 Wagara”, will be 6404.11.8090, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for footwear, in which the upper’s external surface is predominately textile materials (excluding accessories and reinforcements); which has outer soles of rubber or plastics; which is tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like; and which is valued over $6.50 but not over $12.00 per pair. The rate of duty will be 90 cents per pair plus 20% ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. 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, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division

N184378 October 13, 2011 CLA-2-64:OT:RR:NC:N4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.8090 Mr. Wing L. Cheung Marubeni America Corporation 375 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10035 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Mr. Cheung: In your ruling letter dated September 13, 2011, you requested a tariff classification ruling for children’s footwear. Pictures, a detailed description, and an interim footwear invoice were submitted with your request. The item, identified as “Baby 07 Wagara”, is a child’s closed toe/closed heel Mary-Jane-style shoe with rubber/plastic outer soles. The uppers are made of 90 percent textile and 10 percent rubber/plastic, do not cover the ankle, and are secured to the wearer’s foot with a hook and loop strap closure across the foot. You state the shoe does not have a metal toe cap, a foxing, or a foxing-like band. The item is valued at $10.40 per pair. The applicable subheading for this child’s shoe, identified as style name “Baby 07 Wagara”, will be 6404.11.8090, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for footwear, in which the upper’s external surface is predominately textile materials (excluding accessories and reinforcements); which has outer soles of rubber or plastics; which is tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like; and which is valued over $6.50 but not over $12.00 per pair. The rate of duty will be 90 cents per pair plus 20% ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. 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, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division

N008185 March 23, 2007 CLA-2-64:RR:NC:247: CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.7090 Ms. Susan Morelli Converse One High Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Ms. Rizzo: In your letter dated November 1, 2006, you requested a tariff classification ruling for a footwear/paint kit sample, identified as reference # KD034-07F-450, “Chuck Taylor Express Yourself.”       The submitted sample is a lace-up athletic shoe with an outer sole of rubber/plastics and an upper of textile material. The shoe covers the ankle and has a foxing or foxing-like band. The footwear is sold with a “clear sealed poly bag” containing three ¾ oz. tubes of paint and an applicator “comb” used to apply the paint to the shoe’s white canvas upper. The shoe/paint kit is a “set” for tariff classification purposes with the essential character imparted by the footwear. You have provided a value of over $3 but not over $6.50/pair. The applicable subheading for reference # KD034-07F-450, “Chuck Taylor Express Yourself” will be 6404.11.7090, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (HTSUS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics and uppers of textile material: Sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued over $3 but not over $6.50/pair. The general rate of duty will be 90 cents per pair plus 37.5 percent ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. 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, Richard Foley at 646-733-3042. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division

N027026 May 9, 2008 CLA-2-64:OT:RR:NC:SP:247 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.8090 Ms. Mei Li Marubeni America Corp. 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017-3904 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Ms Li: In your letter dated April 24, 2008 you requested a tariff classification ruling for two half pair samples of athletic-type shoes for infants and children, identified as style names Baby 03 and Child 07. The two samples, style name “Baby 03” and “Child 07” are both below-the-ankle height athletic-type shoes with a predominately textile material upper and a molded rubber/plastic bottom/outsole that overlaps the upper with a foxing-like band. You have provided measurements indicating that both shoe styles have an upper of 65% textile material and 35% “synthetic leather” (rubber/plastics). Both shoes also have an adjustable hook-and-loop closure strap at the instep and you state in your letter that they will both be valued at over $6.50 but not over $12.00 per pair. The applicable subheading for both these shoes, identified as style name “Baby 03” and “Child 07”, will be 6404.11.8090, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for footwear, in which the upper’s external surface is predominately textile materials (excluding accessories and reinforcements); which has outer soles of rubber or plastics; which is tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like; and which is valued over $6.50 but not over $12.00 per pair. The rate of duty will be 90 cents per pair plus 20% ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. 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 Richard Foley at 646-733-3042. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division

N095056 March 16, 2010 CLA-2-64:OT:RR:NC:N4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.4000, 6402.99.3115 Mr. Jeff Chow Air Tiger Express, Inc. 17000 E. Gale Avenue City of Industry, CA 91745 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Mr. Chow: In your letter dated February 8, 2010 you requested a tariff classification ruling on behalf of CPC Arbor Collection, Inc. for three men’s “athletic-like” shoes. Style #2101 is a men’s below-the-ankle, lace-up “athletic-like” shoe which has an outer sole of rubber/plastics. The Interim Footwear Invoice provided by you identifies the upper being composed of rubber/plastics, however, visual inspection shows the upper to be composed of both rubber/plastics and textile materials with the textile materials predominating as the constituent material having the greatest external surface area. The shoe features certain characteristics of an athletic shoe, such as a flexible sole, padded foot-bed and collar, a secure means of closure and a general athletic appearance. Consequently, it will be classified as such. It does not have a foxing or foxing-like band. In a telephone conversation with our office, you provided an F.O.B. value of $2.20/pair. The applicable subheading for Style #2101, men’s athletic shoe will be 6404.11.4000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued not over $3.00/pair: having soles (or mid-soles, if any) of rubber or plastics which are affixed to the upper exclusively with an adhesive (any mid-soles also being affixed exclusively to one another and to the sole with an adhesive); the foregoing except footwear having a foxing or a foxing-like band applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper and except footwear with soles which overlap the upper other than at the toe or heel. The rate of duty will be 37.5 percent ad valorem. Style #115 and Style #408 are men’s below-the-ankle, lace-up “athletic-like” shoes which have outer soles and uppers of rubber/plastics. Both of these styles feature the same characteristics as Style #2101 and will consequently be classified as athletic shoes. They do not feature a foxing or foxing-like band. In a telephone conversation with our office, you provided an F.O.B. value of $2.00/pair for each style number. The applicable subheading for both Style #115 and Style #408, men’s athletic shoes will be 6402.99.3115, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics: other footwear: other: other: having uppers of which over 90 percent of the external surface area (including any accessories or reinforcements) is rubber or plastics (except footwear having a foxing or a foxing-like band applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper and except footwear 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): other: other: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like. The rate of duty is 6 percent ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. Styles #’s 2101 and 408 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, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division

N087778 January 8, 2010 CLA-2-64:OT:RR:NC:4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6402.99.8005, 6404.11.8060, 6404.19.3515, 6405.20.9015 Ms. Deirdre R. Coleman Reilly International 1555 N. Michael Drive Wood Dale, IL 60191 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China and Vietnam Dear Ms. Coleman: In your letter dated December 9, 2009, on behalf of ISA Traesko, you requested a tariff classification ruling. Samples were submitted for two running shoes and two slippers. Item 2a L/M Running shoe is an athletic-type shoe that does not cover the wearer’s ankle and has an upper external surface area that you state consists of 60 percent rubber/plastics and 40 percent textile materials, with an outer sole of 100 percent rubber/plastics. The unit price is $8.00/pair. Item 2b L/M Running shoe is also an athletic-type shoe that does not cover the wearer’s ankle and has an upper external surface area that you state consists of 55 percent textile and 45 percent rubber/plastics materials, with an outer sole of 100 percent rubber/plastics. The unit price is $8.00/pair Item 3a Ladies Slipper is a closed toe, open heel slipper for indoor use. The upper consists of a plush textile material that also covers an approximately 1-inch high foam midsole. An outline of a flower with leaves is embroidered over a clear plastic film onto the surface of the upper and embellished with 10 sequins. The outer sole is separately attached and consist of rubber/plastics. Item 3b Ladies Slipper is a closed toe, open heel slipper for indoor use. The upper consists of plush textile material with an embroidered nose, mouth, and eyes and attached ears, to resemble a bunny rabbit’s face. The plush textile also covers an approximately 1-inch high foam midsole. The slipper also has a separately attached outer sole that, as you indicate, has a layer of textile fabric material on its outer surface in contact with the ground. The applicable subheading for item 2a L/M Running shoe will be 6402.99.8005, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for other footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics: other footwear: other: other: other: valued over $6.50 but not over $12/pair: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like. The rate of duty will be 90 cents/pair plus 20 percent ad valorem. The applicable subheading for item 2b, L/M Running shoe will be 6404.11.8060, HTSUS, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued over $6.50 but not over $12.00/pair: for women. The rate of duty will be 90 cents/pair plus 20 percent ad valorem. The applicable subheading for item 3a Ladies Slipper, will be 6404.19.3515, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: other: footwear with open toes or open heels; and which is over 10% by weight of rubber and/or plastics…house slippers. The rate of duty will be 37.5% ad valorem. The applicable subheading for item 3b Ladies Slipper will be 6405.20.9015, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for other footwear: with uppers of textile materials: other: house slippers. The rate of duty will be 12.5 percent ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. 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, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division

N124616 October 15, 2010 CLA-2-64:OT:RR:NC:N4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.9050 Ms. Lisa Mikkelsen Inov-8, LLC 10 Southville Road Southborough, MA 01772 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Ms. Mikkelsen: In your letter dated September 22, 2010 you requested a tariff classification ruling for what you describe as a unisex “running” shoe. The submitted half-pair sample identified as style name Road-X 233, is a below-the-ankle lace-up “athletic” shoe with an outer sole composed of rubber/plastics. The upper is composed predominately of nylon fabric air mesh (70%), based upon the external surface area measurements provided by you, by percentage, for all component materials. We consider this material to be textile for tariff classification purposes. The textile upper also features a web-like thermoplastic “cage” (20%) that extends upward from the sole and provides both heel and medial and lateral reinforcement. You provided an F.O.B. value of $23.90/pair. Chapter 64, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (HTSUS), Additional U.S. Note 2, states: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 general, this office interprets this note to mean that "athletic" covers not only tennis, basketball, training and gym shoes, but also shoes that are like those named exemplars. We further interpret "like" to mean that which has the same, or nearly the same appearance, qualities or characteristics as the named exemplars. In addition, it is further Customs position that in order for footwear to be classified as athletic footwear in 6404.11 HTSUS, it must be constructed for an activity that requires fast footwork or extensive running. In this regard, we conclude that the shoe looks, functions and has the characteristics of athletic footwear and is designed for running. The applicable subheading for style name Road-X 233, unisex running shoe will be 6404.11.9050, HTSUS, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued over $12/pair: for women: other. The rate of duty will be 20% ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. The submitted sample is not marked with the country of origin. Therefore, if imported as is, it 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, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division

N136977 January 6, 2011 CLA-2-64:RR:NC:N4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.8060 Ms. DeeDee DeSmet Adidas5055 N. Greeley Avenue Portland, OR 97217 RE:     The tariff classification of footwear from Vietnam Dear Ms. DeSmet:In your letter dated November 24, 2010 you requested a tariff classification ruling for a women’s tennis shoe. The submitted half-pair sample identified as article G51073 “Honey Low W,” is a women’s low cut lace-up “athletic” shoe with an outer sole composed of rubber/plastic. The external surface area of the upper is composed predominately of textile material and features decorative printed letters of rubber/plastic securely affixed to its surface. These letters do not completely cover the underlying textile material and are considered accessories of reinforcement for tariff classification purposes. However, you question whether these letters should be included in the external surface area of the upper. In Headquarters Ruling Letter HRL 953556, Customs took the position that “the term ‘accessories or reinforcements,’ although not fully defined, includes any additional material added to an otherwise completed upper as long as the underlying material is a plausible upper material, if not the best material.” There is no question that the textile material on the submitted sample is plausible upper material and is the external surface of the upper. You provided an F.O.B. value of $10.80 per pair and suggest classification under subheading 6402.99.8005, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (HTSUS), which provides for footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber/plastics. We disagree with this suggested classification based upon the above-mentioned ruling. The applicable subheading for article G51073 “Honey Low W,” will be 6404.11.8060, 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: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued over $6.50 but not over $12/pair: for women. The rate of duty will be 90 cents/pair + 20% ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. 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,   Robert B. Swierupski                                Director                                National Commodity Specialist Division

PD I84445 July 25, 2002 CLA-2-64:G23 I84445 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.50; 6405.20.90 Ms. Alice Liu Import Manager Atico International USA, Inc. 501 South Andrews Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 RE: The tariff classification of textile shoes from China. Dear Ms. Liu: In your letter dated July 16, 2002, you requested a tariff classification ruling for two styles of footwear to be imported from China. The samples submitted with your request are the C20B1915 Ladies’ Canvas Shoe and the C20C0473 Men’s Mule Slipper. Style C20B1915 is a low cut sneaker with an upper of cotton canvas and an outer sole of rubber/plastics. It has a lace closure and features a foxing band. The first cost is $1.70 per pair. Style C20C0473 is an open-heel slip-on shoe with an upper of synthetic leather material and an outer sole of rubber/plastics covered with a thin layer of textile material. The external surface area of the upper is comprised of raised textile fibers; the constituent material of the sole having the greatest surface area in contact with the ground is the textile layer. This shoe does not appear to meet the specific definition of “house slippers” in Chapter 64 Statistical Note 1 (d), HTSUSA. The samples are being returned, as requested. The applicable subheading for style C20B1915 will be 6404.11.50, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics . . . . and uppers of textile materials: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like; not having uppers over 50 percent of leather; valued not over $3.00 per pair: other. The rate of duty will be 48% ad valorem. The applicable subheading for style C20C0473 will be 6405.20.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for other footwear with uppers of textile materials: other: other. The rate of duty will be 12.5% ad valorem. This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177). A copy of this ruling letter should be attached to the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction. If you have any questions pertaining to this matter, please contact Field National Import Specialist Leo S. Maciejewski at 207-771-3617 or National Import Specialist Richard Foley at 646-733-7042. Sincerely, Jeffrey Walgreen, Port Director Portland, Maine

N133736 December 8, 2010 CLA-2-64:OT:RR:NC:N4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.2030 Ms. Maureen Shoule J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company, Inc. 161-15 Rockaway Blvd. Jamaica, NY 11434 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Ms. Shoule: In your letter dated November 15, 2010 you requested a tariff classification ruling on behalf of your client, Samsung C&T America, Inc. The submitted half-pair sample identified as style #TR156106 “Ace Hi,” is an ankle high lace-up “athletic” shoe with an outer sole composed of rubber/plastics. The upper is composed of both textile material (39.87%) and leather (60.09%), based upon the external surface area measurements provided by you, by percentage, for all component materials. In determining the material that constitutes the external surface area of the upper, we refer to Note 4(a) to Chapter 64 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (HTSUS), which 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.” The diagram provided by you which shows the components of the shoe, includes accessories or reinforcements such as an ankle strap (8.88%), eyelet stay (7.52%), ankle logo/patch (7.1%), and heel tab (3.61%). The sum total of these accessories or reinforcements is 27.11%. When subtracted from the total percentage of leather, the percentage of leather which constitutes the external surface area is 32.98%. Therefore, the constituent material having the greatest external surface area of the upper is predominately textile. Consequently, the shoe will be classified under heading 6404, HTSUS, which has an “add back” provision for accessories or reinforcements. You also provided an Interim Footwear Invoice which indicates that the shoe covers the ankle, is exclusively for men, youths or boys and is not tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like. However, the shoe features certain characteristics of athletic footwear such as a foxing or foxing-like band, a flexible outer sole, a secure means of closure and a general athletic appearance. Chapter 64, HTSUS, Additional U.S. Note 2, states: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 general, this office interprets this note to mean that "athletic" covers not only tennis, basketball, training and gym shoes, but also shoes that are like those named exemplars. We further interpret "like" to mean that which has the same, or nearly the same appearance, qualities or characteristics as the named exemplars. In addition, it is further Customs position that in order for footwear to be classified as athletic footwear in 6404.11 HTSUS, it must be constructed for an activity that requires fast footwork or extensive running. In this regard, we conclude that the shoe looks functions and has the characteristics of athletic footwear. The applicable subheading for style #TR156106 “Ace Hi” athletic shoe will be 6404.11.2030, HTSUS, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: 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: for men. The rate of duty will be 10.5% ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. The submitted sample is not marked with the country of origin. Therefore, if imported as is, it 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, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division

N143628 February 10, 2011 CLA-2-64:OT:RR:NC:N4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.4000 Mr. Troy Clarke CBT International, Inc. 249 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 650 Long Beach, CA 90802 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Mr. Clarke: In your letter dated January 4, 2011 you requested a tariff classification ruling on behalf of your client, CPC Ardor Collection, Inc. The submitted half pair sample identified as style number 500, is a men’s below-the-ankle lace-up “athletic” shoe with a rubber/plastics outer sole which does not overlap the upper and which is affixed to the upper exclusively with an adhesive. You state that the upper is polyurethane rubber/plastics and provided an Interim Footwear Invoice to substantiate this claim. However, an examination of the upper by our office shows fibrous material to be both visible and tactile on its surface, thereby making it textile for tariff classification purposes. You provided an F.O.B. value of $2.90/pair. The applicable subheading for style number 500 will be 6404.11.4000, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued not over $3.00/pair: having soles (or mid-soles, if any) of rubber or plastics which are affixed to the upper exclusively with an adhesive; the foregoing except footwear having a foxing or a foxing-like band and except footwear with soles which overlap the upper other than at the toe or heel. The rate of duty will be 37.5% ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. The submitted sample is not marked with the country of origin. Therefore, if imported as is, it 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, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division

N032991 July 25, 2008 CLA-2-64:RR:SP:247 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.7060 Mr. Rain Martin DBA FuREAKS 34484 Palomares Road Castro Valley, CA 94552 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Mr. Martin: In your letter dated July 2, 2008, you requested a tariff classification ruling for two footwear styles. You have submitted samples of lace-up athletic shoes with, what you describe as, vulcanized rubber outer soles and uppers of faux-fur with animal skin patterns. You have not provided identifying style names or numbers for either shoe. One sample covers the ankle and one does not. You have provided a value between $3.50 - $6/pair. As you note, Treasury Decision (T.D.) 93-88, FOOTWEAR DEFINITIONS dated October 25, 1993 states that for the purposes of classification of footwear within Chapter 64 Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (HTSUS), textile materials does not include artificial fur, i.e. fibers gummed or sewn onto leather, woven fabric, or other materials (so as to imitate furskin) but does not include woven or knitted long pile fabrics. The faux-fur material comprising the external surface of the upper for the submitted samples is not made by gumming or sewing fibers onto another material but rather is made of a woven pile fabric. In this regard, the material is a good of Section XI, HTSUS, TEXTILES AND TEXTILE ARTICLES. The applicable subheading for the two unidentified athletic footwear styles will be 6404.11.7060, HTSUS, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics and uppers of textile materials: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: valued over $3 but not over $6.50/pair, other. The rate of duty will be 90 cents/pr plus 37.5 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, Richard Foley at 646-733-3042. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division

NY L85644 June 29, 2005 CLA-2-64:RR:NC:247: L85644 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.70, 6404.19.50 Ms. Marsha McCabe Midwest Gloves & Gear P.O. Box 260 Chillicothe, MO 64601 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China. Dear Ms. McCabe: In your letter dated June 10, 2005 you requested a tariff classification ruling for two footwear styles. Style 6000A6 is an athletic shoe with an outer sole of rubber/plastics and an upper of textile mesh material and plastics. The unit molded rubber/plastics outer sole overlaps the upper by more than ¼ inch and is a foxing or foxing-like band. The shoe is secured to the foot by a cinch-type closure. You have provided a value of $4.75/pr. for this item. The applicable subheading for style 6000A6 will be 6404.11.70, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (HTS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics and uppers of textile material, tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like, other, valued over $3 but not over $6.50/pair. The general rate of duty will be 90 cents per pair plus 37.5 percent ad valorem. Style 6100A6 and 6110A6 (identical except for color) is a slip-on shoe with an open-heel. The outer sole is rubber/plastics and the upper is textile mesh material. The unit molded rubber/plastics outer sole overlaps the upper by more than ¼ inch and is a foxing or foxing-like band. You have provided a value of $2.09/pr. for this item. The applicable subheading for style 6100A6 and 6110A6 will be 6404.19.50, (HTS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics and uppers of textile material, other, other valued not over $3/pair. The general rate of duty will be 48 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, Richard Foley at 646-733-3042. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division

NY L86793 August 15, 2005 CLA-2:64:RR:NC::247 L86793 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.80 Ms. Florence Lam Marubeni America Corporation 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017-3984 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China. Dear Ms. Lam: In your letter dated July 15, 2005 you requested a tariff classification ruling for two children’s shoes from China. You have submitted samples of styles Baby 01 (B002) and Baby 02 (B004). Both styles are children’s low-cut, sneaker type, shoes that have rubber/plastics outer soles. You have provided percentage measurements for the uppers indicating that textile material predominates by external surface area. The shoes have hook & loop closure systems. The applicable subheading for both styles will be 6404.11.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (HTS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics and uppers of textile material, tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like, other, valued over $6.50 but not over $12/pair. The general rate of duty will be 90 cents per pair plus 20 percent ad valorem. We note that the submitted samples have a country of origin label sewn to the base of the tongue or some other inconspicuous place inside the shoe. 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." We further note that the shoe boxes submitted along with the sample footwear have “TSUKIHOSHI” trademark “ESTABLISHED IN JAPAN SINCE 1873” printed in large lettering on the box top. If the shoes of foreign origin are conspicuously and legibly marked with their country of origin, then marking the unsealed shoe box with the country of origin of the shoe is unnecessary, provided that the boxes have no place or locality references printed on them. Customs has previously held that cardboard shoe boxes are disposable containers excepted from marking with their own country of origin under 19 C.F.R. 134.24(c)(1). However, if the shoe box has a locality reference other than the country of origin of the imported footwear, it must be marked with the country of origin of the imported footwear in a conspicuous place to satisfy the requirements of 19 C.F.R. 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, Richard Foley at 646-733-3042. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division

N012161 June 15, 2007 CLA-2-64:RR:NC:SP:247 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.8090 Ms. Mei Li Marubeni America Corp. 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017-3904 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Ms Li: In your letter dated May 30, 2007 you requested a tariff classification ruling for three half pair samples of athletic-type shoes for children and infants, identified as style names Baby 03, Child 01 and Child 07. The sample identified as style name “Child 01” is a below-the-ankle height athletic-type shoe with a predominately textile material upper and a molded rubber/plastic bottom/outsole that overlaps the upper with a foxing-like band. The shoe has an adjustable hook-and-loop closure strap at the instep and you state in your letter that it will be valued at $7.00 per pair. The applicable subheading for this child’s shoe, identified as style name “Child 01” will be 6404.11.8090, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for footwear, in which the upper’s external surface is predominately textile materials (excluding accessories and reinforcements); which has outer soles of rubber or plastics; which is tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like; and which is valued over $6.50 but not over $12.00 per pair. The rate of duty will be 90 cents per pair plus 20% ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. Your inquiry does not provide enough information for us to give a classification ruling on the two footwear samples identified as style “Baby 03” and “Child 07.” Your request for a classification ruling for each of these athletic-like shoes should include an accurate, independent lab measurement of the external surface area upper (ESAU) materials as percentage totals of the textile and the rubber/plastics materials that make up their respective uppers. When measuring the external surface area of these shoe uppers, the tongues, hook-and loop closure straps and the textile pull-up tabs are not to be included in the upper external surface area material percentage totals. Please also provide an import price/value for each shoe style. When this information is available, you may wish to consider resubmission of your request. We are returning any related samples, exhibits, etc. If you decide to resubmit your request, please include all of the material that we have returned to you. 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 Richard Foley at 646-733-3042. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division

N096942 April 1, 2010 CLA-2-64:OT:RR:NC:N4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6402.99.3165, 6402.99.3171, 6404.11.5000, 6404.11.7060 Ms. Deirdre R. Coleman Reilly International 1555 N. Michael Drive Wood Dale, IL 60191 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China/Vietnam Dear Ms. Coleman: In your letter dated March 4, 2010 you requested a tariff classification ruling on behalf of ISA Traekso for five samples of women’s/men’s and children’s shoes identified below. This ruling is being issued based upon the accuracy of your statements and the Interim Footwear Invoices provided by you regarding the percentage measurements of the materials used to manufacture these shoes. This information may be verified at the time of importation. Article 10 is identified by you as a ladies below-the-ankle open toe/closed heel “ballerina clog” with an outer sole and upper composed of rubber/plastics. Attached to the back of the heel is a rubber/plastics ankle strap with buckle closure. The F.O.B. value is $2.00/pair. The applicable subheading for Article 10, ladies shoe will be 6402.99.3165, HTSUS, which provides for other footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics: other: other: having uppers of which over 90% of the external surface area (including accessories and reinforcements) is rubber or plastics (except footwear having a foxing or foxing-like band applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper and except footwear 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): other: other: other: for women: other. The rate of duty will be 6% ad valorem. Article 16 is identified by you as a unisex open toe/open heel “trekking” sandal with an outer sole composed of rubber/plastics. The sandal is secured to the foot by three hook and loop Velcro® closures at the vamp, instep and at the back of the ankle. The Interim Footwear Invoice provided by you indicates that the upper is composed of 95% rubber/plastics and 5% textile materials. Visual examination shows there to be a rubber/plastics overlay stitched to an otherwise textile upper (including the Velcro® closures). The rubber/plastics overlay is lasted under the insole and cemented to the top of the outer sole, thereby contributing strength to the structure of the shoe and providing support for the wearer’s foot. As such, the rubber/plastics overlay of the upper (including the Velcro® closures) will be the constituent material having the greatest external surface area. The F.O.B. value is $5.00/pair. The applicable subheading for Article 16, unisex sandal will be 6402.99.3165, HTSUS, which provides for other footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics: other: other: having uppers of which over 90% of the external surface area (including accessories and reinforcements) is rubber or plastics (except footwear having a foxing or foxing-like band applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper and except footwear 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): other: other: other: for women: other. The rate of duty will be 6% ad valorem. Article 2 is identified by you as a girl’s closed toe/open heel slip-on “summer clog” with an outer sole and upper produced entirely in one piece by molding of rubber/plastics. There are three vent holes on each side of the upper and the clog is not considered to be protective. You state that although the clog reads “Made in Malaysia” on the bottom of the outer sole, the clog will be manufactured in China. The F.O.B value is $1.50/pair The applicable subheading for Article 2, girl’s “summer clog” will be 6402.99.3171, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for other footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics: other: other: having uppers of which over 90% of the external surface area (including accessories and reinforcements) is rubber or plastics (except footwear having a foxing or foxing-like band applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper and except footwear 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): not sandals and similar footwear of plastics, produced in one piece by molding: other: other. The rate of duty will be 6% ad valorem. Article 17 is identified by you as a unisex below-the-ankle lace-up shoe which has an outer sole composed of rubber/plastics. The shoe features certain characteristics of an athletic shoe such as a foxing or foxing-like band, a toe bumper, a flexible sole and athletic outer sole tread, a padded foot-bed, a secure means of closure and a general athletic appearance. Consequently, it is considered to be an athletic shoe. The Interim Footwear Invoice provided by you indicates that the constituent material having the greatest external surface area of the upper (excluding accessories or reinforcements) is 100% cotton canvas textile materials. The F.O.B. value is $3.00/pair. The applicable subheading for Article 17, athletic shoe will be 6404.11.5000, HTSUS, which provides for other footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued not over $3.00/pair: other. The rate of duty will be 48% ad valorem. Article 18 is identified by you as a unisex above-the-ankle lace-up shoe with an outer sole composed of rubber/plastics. The shoe features certain characteristics of an athletic shoe such as a foxing or foxing-like band, a toe bumper, a flexible sole and athletic outer sole tread, a padded foot-bed, a secure means of closure and a general athletic appearance. Consequently, it is considered to be an athletic shoe. The Interim Footwear Invoice provided by you indicates that the constituent material having the greatest external surface area of the upper (excluding accessories or reinforcements) is 100% cotton canvas textile materials. The F.O.B. value is $4.00/pair. The applicable subheading for Article 18, athletic shoe will be 6404.11.7060, HTSUS, which provides for other footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued over $3.00 but not over $6.50/pair: other: for women. The rate of duty will be 90 cents / pair + 37.5% ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. 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, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division

HQ 087459 October 2, 1990 CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 087459 KWM CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.90 Ms. Jane Laurie Air Express International Agency, Inc. 8500 Osage Avenue Los Angeles, California 90034 RE: Kemper Snowboards; snowboard ski boot; footwear; sports footwear; ski boot; upper of textile material; upper less than 50 percent leather; outer sole of plastics. Dear Ms. Laurie: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated May 31, 1990, regarding the tariff classification of boots for snowboard skiing. Your letter and samples of the goods have been forwarded to this office for a ruling. After consideration of the information and samples you provided, we have determined that the boots should be classified as set forth below. FACTS: Your correspondence requested a classification ruling for two styles of boot, both for use with a snowboard ski. Because you have provided a description and sample for only one style, our holding here is binding only for that style. However we have suggested what we believe is the appropriate classification for the second style based on our experience with similar merchandise. The boot styles at issue here are referred to by you as the "Alpine" and "Flight" models. A sample of the "Alpine" model was included with your request. It consists of two parts: a removable inner liner and an outer shell. The information included with your letter indicates that the "foot portion" of the shell is made of molded plastic. Likewise, the outer sole is entirely of plastic. The upper portion of the shell is made of a thick plastic layer to which a white woven fabric lining and a black woven fabric outer layer are laminated. The tongue of the boot is plastic, as are the decorative overlays. The "Flight" model is identical in most respects except that the uppers are described as being of leather rather than plastic laminated with textile material. ISSUE: How are these goods classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA) is made in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's). The systematic detail of the harmonized system is such that virtually all goods are classified by application of GRI 1, that is, according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relevant Section or Chapter Notes. In the event that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRIs may be applied, taken in order. Although your letter did not expressly state that such was the case, we assume for the purposes of this ruling that the liner and outer shell will be imported as a retail unit. Classification of the outer shell component, therefore, will provide classification for the merchandise as a whole. The headings of Chapter 64 provide for the classification of footwear. The provisions of each heading are distinguished by the component material which comprises the outer sole and/or the upper. We note that heading 6404, HTSUSA, may include this merchandise. It provides for, in pertinent part: 6404 Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: Footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics: In this case, classification in heading 6404, HTSUSA, hinges on the determination that the plastics and textile uppers of these boots are classified as textile materials. We believe that they are. Our decision is based on the information you provided, and an examination which indicates that the surface of the uppers is primarily textile material according to Legal Note 4(a) to Chapter 64 (no account be taken of ornamentation, etc.). This finding is subject to verification by the port of entry. Within heading 6404, HTSUSA, subheading 6404.11, HTSUSA, provides for: 6404.11 Sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: The term "sports footwear" is defined in Subheading Legal Note 1 to Chapter 64, HTSUSA, as: 1. For the purposes of subheading 6402.11, 6402.19, 6403.19, and 6404.11, the expression "sports footwear" applies only to: (a) Footwear which is designed for a sporting activity and has, or has provision for the attachment of spikes, sprigs, cleats, stops, clips bars or the like; (b) Skating boots, ski-boots, and cross-country ski footwear, wrestling boots, boxing boots and cycling shoes. (Emphasis added). Further, Additional U.S. Legal Note 2 provides that: 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 note 1 above), whether or not principally used for such athletic games or purposes. (Emphasis added). We need not decide here whether the "ski- boots" described as sports footwear in Subheading Legal Note 1(b) encompasses goods such as these. The provisions of the subheading read in conjunction with the Legal Notes, as prescribed by GRI 1, clearly indicate that the instant merchandise is encompassed by the subheading terms regardless of whether we consider them "ski-boots" "sports footwear" or "athletic footwear other than sports footwear." That intent is obvious from a reading of the tariff provisions. The instant merchandise is a type of footwear, and snowboarding (or snowboard skiing) is as much a sport (or athletic activity) as the other activities specified in the subheading and legal notes. Further, the notes make clear that, at least for "athletic footwear", the item need not be used principally for such athletic purposes. It is sufficient, as in this case, that the boots possess attributes which indicate their suitability for a sport or activity: a stiff sole, textile laminated plastic uppers, and an insulated liner. Some features distinguish the sample boots from ordinary insulated winter boots; other are more common. Footwear with less than 50 percent exterior surface of leather is classified in the "other" provisions of 6404.11, HTSUSA. This subheading is further divided based on the value per pair. The instant goods described as the "Alpine" style have less than 50 percent exterior surface of leather, and are valued at over $12.00 per pair. We believe that the goods described as the "Flight" style would have uppers of which over 50 percent of the external surface area is leather (See subheading 6404.11.20, HTSUSA). HOLDING: The goods described as "Alpine" style snowboard boots are classified as "sports" or athletic footwear included in subheading 6404.11.90, having uppers of which less than 50 percent is leather, valued at over $12.00 per pair. These goods are dutiable at the rate of 20 percent ad valorem. No binding classification is provided for the goods described as "Flight" style snowboard boots due to the absence of an adequate description and/or a representative sample. Sincerely, John A. Durant Director Commercial Rulings Division

N137924 January 6, 2011 CLA-2-64:OT:RR:NC:N4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.2030 Ms. Maureen Shoule J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company, Inc. 161-15 Rockaway Blvd. Jamaica, NY 11434 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China. Correction to ruling number N133736. Dear Ms. Shoule: This replaces ruling number N133736, dated December 8, 2010, which contained a clerical error regarding the description of the product. A complete and corrected ruling follows. In your letter dated November 15, 2010 you requested a tariff classification ruling on behalf of your client, Samsung C&T America, Inc. The submitted half-pair sample identified as style #TR156106 “Ace Hi,” is an ankle high lace-up “athletic” shoe with an outer sole composed of rubber/plastics. The upper is composed of both textile material (39.87%) and leather (60.09%), based upon the external surface area measurements provided by you, by percentage, for all component materials. In determining the material that constitutes the external surface area of the upper, we refer to Note 4(a) to Chapter 64 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (HTSUS), which 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.” The diagram provided by you which shows the components of the shoe, includes accessories or reinforcements such as an ankle strap (8.88%), eyelet stay (7.52%), ankle logo/patch (7.1%), and heel tab (3.61%). The sum total of these accessories or reinforcements is 27.11%. When subtracted from the total percentage of leather, the percentage of leather which constitutes the external surface area is 32.98%. Therefore, the constituent material having the greatest external surface area of the upper is predominately textile. Consequently, the shoe will be classified under heading 6404, HTSUS, which has an “add back” provision for accessories or reinforcements. In reference to the removable ankle strap which is considered an accessory or reinforcement, you request a ruling on the ankle strap when it is attached to, as well as not attached to the submitted sample, but merely imported together in the same container. You also provided an Interim Footwear Invoice which indicates that the shoe covers the ankle, is exclusively for men, youths or boys and is not tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like. However, the shoe features certain characteristics of athletic footwear such as a foxing or foxing-like band, a flexible outer sole, a secure means of closure and a general athletic appearance. Chapter 64, HTSUS, Additional U.S. Note 2, states: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 general, this office interprets this note to mean that "athletic" covers not only tennis, basketball, training and gym shoes, but also shoes that are like those named exemplars. We further interpret "like" to mean that which has the same, or nearly the same appearance, qualities or characteristics as the named exemplars. In addition, it is further Customs position that in order for footwear to be classified as athletic footwear in 6404.11 HTSUS, it must be constructed for an activity that requires fast footwork or extensive running. In this regard, we conclude that the shoe looks functions and has the characteristics of athletic footwear. The applicable subheading for style #TR156106 “Ace Hi” athletic shoe, when imported with the ankle strap attached to and when not attached to the shoe (but within the same container) will be 6404.11.2030, HTSUS, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: 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: for men. The rate of duty will be 10.5% ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. The submitted sample is not marked with the country of origin. Therefore, if imported as is, it 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, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division

N155835 April 11, 2011 CLA-2-64:RR:NC:N4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6402.99.3115, 6402.99.6060, 6404.11.5000 Mr. Denni Awana Inter-Orient Services1455 Monterey Pass Road #205 Monterey Park, CA 91754 RE:     The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Mr. Awana:In your letter dated March 18, 2011 you requested a tariff classification ruling for women’s shoes. The submitted two half-pair samples, each identified as style #BP002, are women’s low cut lace-up “athletic” shoes with rubber/plastic outer soles and uppers. Both of these shoes are identical but for a foxing or a foxing-like band, an insole and a shoelace. You refer to the shoe without these components as “unfinished.” Notwithstanding the absence of the shoelace, the “unfinished” shoe is designed for use with laces as evidenced by the six eyelets on each side of the shoe. As such, it will be classified the same as if it was imported with shoelaces. Each shoe features an approximate one inch embroidered “heart” on the rear quarter which does not account for more than ten percent of the external surface area of the upper. Each shoe has the general appearance of an athletic shoe and is classified as such, “whether or not principally used for such athletic games or purposes” as stated in Chapter 64, Additional U.S. Note 2, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). You provided an F.O.B. value of $2.90 per pair for each shoe. The applicable subheading for the “unfinished” shoe identified as style #BP002 will be 6402.99.3115, HTSUS, which provides for footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics: other footwear: other: other: having uppers of which over 90% of the external surface area (including accessories or reinforcements) is rubber or plastics; which does not have a foxing or foxing-like band; which is not protective against water, oil, grease or chemicals or cold or inclement weather; other: other: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like. The rate of duty will be 6% ad valorem.The applicable subheading for the “finished” shoe identified as style #BP002 will be 6402.99.6060, HTSUS, which provides for other footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics: other footwear: other: other: having uppers of which over 90 percent of the external surface area (including accessories or reinforcements) is rubber or plastics; having a foxing or foxing-like band applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper; footwear not 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; valued not over $3/pair; other: for women. The rate of duty will be 48% ad valorem. The submitted two half-pair samples, each identified as style #BP001, are women’s low cut lace-up “athletic” shoes with rubber/plastic outer soles and uppers of textile materials. Both of these shoes are identical but for a foxing or a foxing-like band, an insole and a shoelace. You refer to the shoe without these components as “unfinished.” Notwithstanding the absence of the shoelace, the “unfinished” shoe is designed for use with laces as evidenced by the six eyelets on each side of the shoe. As such, it will be classified the same as if it was imported with shoelaces. Each shoe has the general appearance of an athletic shoe and is classified as such, “whether or not principally used for such athletic games or purposes” as stated in Chapter 64, Additional U.S. Note 2, HTSUS. You provided an F.O.B. value of $2.90 per pair for each shoe. The applicable subheading for both the “unfinished” and “finished” shoes identified as style #BP001 will be 6404.11.5000, HTSUS, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued not over $3/pair: not having soles (or mid-soles, if any) of rubber or plastics which are affixed to the upper exclusively with an adhesive. The rate of duty will be 48% ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. 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,   Robert B. Swierupski                                Director                                National Commodity Specialist Division

NY K84330 March 23, 2004 CLA-2-64:RR:NC:SP:247 K84330 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.90 Mr. John J. Kenney Reebok International LTD 1895 J. W. Foster Boulevard Canton, MA 02021 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from Taiwan Dear Mr. Kenney: In your letter dated March 12, 2004 you requested a tariff classification ruling. The submitted half pair sample identified as “Zanchi Zen Mid Mesh, Style 2-102215” is as you state, a women’s “sports performance shoe.” This athletic- like shoe has a predominately textile material upper that does not cover the wearer’s ankle, with a textile tongue and a toggle lacing closure system at the collar that secures the shoe to the foot. The shoe upper also features extended suede leather toe bumper and back/heel portions plus a sewn-on rubber/plastic outer sole with slightly raised and molded-on circular traction bumps. You state that this shoe will be valued at more than $12 per pair. Since this shoe is also as you state a sports performance shoe, it is classifiable as “tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like” and not as you suggest, under 6404.19.90 (HTS), “Other” footwear with textile uppers and rubber and/or plastic outer soles. The applicable subheading for the shoe identified as “Zanchi Zen Mid Mesh, Style 2-102215” will be 6404.11, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear, in which the upper’s external surface is predominately textile materials (excluding accessories and reinforcements); in which the outer sole’s external surface is predominately rubber and/or plastics; which is “athletic” footwear; and which is valued over $12.00 per pair. The rate of duty will be 20% ad valorem. We are returning the sample as you requested. 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 Richard Foley at 646-733-3042. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division

PD D82243 October 21, 1998 CLA-2-64:LA:S:T:1:4:D27 D82243 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6402.99.80, 6402.99.90, 6404.11.80 Michael R. Spano Michael R. Spano & Co., Inc. 190 McKee Street Floral Park, New York 11001 RE: The tariff classification of men's, boy's and misses' athletic shoes Dear Mr. Spano: In your letter dated September 16, 1998, on behalf of E. Acquisition Inc., you requested a tariff classification ruling. Along with your ruling request you have submitted 4 samples including specification sheets. The sample identified as style "Machi", pattern number 1X109062, is a Men's slip lasted athletic shoe. You have indicated that the exterior surface area of the upper (ESAU) is 73.2% polyurethane and 26.8% nylon. The sole is rubber/plastic and the shoe has a foxing-like band. The price per pair is $14.15 FOB. The sample identified as style "Rail", pattern number 3X107409, is a boy's slip lasted athletic shoe with a ESAU of 80.48% polyurethane and 19.52% nylon. The sole is rubber/plastic and the shoe has a foxing-like band. The price per pair is $9.20 FOB. The sample identified as "Toure", pattern number 3J110-417, is a boy's slip lasted athletic shoe with an ESAU of 83.15% polyurethane and 16.85% nylon. The sole is rubber/plastic and the shoe has a foxing-like band. The price per pair is $10.50 FOB. The sample identified as "Contender", pattern number 8-J111-007, is a misses' slip lasted athletic shoe with an ESAU of 49.82% polyurethane and 50.18% nylon. The sole is rubber/plastic and the shoe has a foxing-like band. The price per pair is $7.60 FOB. The applicable subheading for the men's athletic shoe style "Machi" will be 6402.99.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear in which the upper's external surface area does not measure over 90% rubber or plastic (including any accessories or reinforcements ) and/or which has a foxing or foxing-like band applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper; which is not 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; which valued over $12.00 per pair. The rate of duty will be 20 percent ad valorem. The applicable subheading for the boy's athletic shoe styles "Rail" and "Toure" will be 6402.99.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear in which the upper's external surface area does not measure over 90% rubber or plastic The rate of duty will be .90/pr. + 20% ad valorem. The applicable subheading for the misses' athletic shoe style "Contender" will be 6404.11.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials; sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like valued over &6.50 but not over $12 per pair. The rate of duty will be .90/pr. + 20% ad valorem. This ruling is being issued under the provisions of Part 177 of the Customs Regulations (19 C.F.R. 177). A copy of this ruling letter or the control number indicated above should be provided with the entry documents filed at the time this merchandise is imported. If the documents have been filed without a copy, this ruling should be brought to the attention of the Customs officer handling the transaction. Sincerely, Irene Jankov Port Director Los Angeles-Long Beach

NY C86875 May 26, 1998 CLA-2-64:RR:NC:TP:347 C86875 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.90 Mr. Dan Beauregard A.N. Deringer, Inc. P.O. Box 284 Rte. I-89 Highgate Springs, VT 05460 RE: The tariff classification of athletic textile shoes from Italy. Dear Mr. Beauregard: In your letter dated April 29, 1998, written of behalf of your client, Northwave N.A., Inc., you requested a tariff classification ruling. You have submitted two samples which you refer to as casual leather footwear, not for use in sporting activities. The uppers are made up of both leather and textile materials, with rubber/plastic outer soles which overlap the uppers by more than 1/4 of an inch, and which also features rubber/plastic protruding nubs along the surfaces of the outer soles. You state that the external surface area of the upper (ESAU) for style #CLB 9705 (Eagle) is 80% textile and 20% leather, and style #CLB 9701 (Shank) is 55% textile and 45% leather. The shoes have lace-tie closures and you state that they are valued at $15.00 per pair. These shoes are considered athletic footwear and the like, as per Chapter 64 within subheading 6404.11, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), Additional U.S. Note 2, which states that 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, whether or not principally used for such athletic games or purposes. The applicable subheading for both styles of athletic shoes will be 6404.11.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which provides for footwear in which the upper's external surface is predominately textile materials, in which the external surface of the outer sole is predominately rubber and/or plastics, which is "athletic footwear," having a foxing-like band applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper, and which is valued over $12.00 per pair. The rate of duty will be 20% ad valorem. 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 Richard Foley at 212-466-5890. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division

HQ 956398 November 15, 1994 CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 956398 DFC CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6402.19.10; 6402.19.70; 6404.11.20; 6404.11.80; 6404.11.90; District Director of Customs P.O. Box 37260 6269 Ace Industrial Dr, Cudahy WI. Milwaukee, WI 53237-0260 RE: Protest 3701-94-100024; Footwear, sports; Upper, external surface area; Accessories or reinforcements; HQ 084013,085381,953556 Dear District Director: This is in response to Protest 3701-94-100024 covering a shipment of athletic footwear [baseball shoes] produced in Taiwan. Samples were submitted for examination. FACTS: The five sample baseball shoes submitted have full mesh uppers with plastic or leather overlays stitched on top of them. Protestant entered styles 7001, 7501, 5006, 6006 and 9230 under subheading 6402.19.10, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), which provides for sports footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics and 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. Style 7001 was classified under subheading 6402.19.70, HTSUS, which provides for sports footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics and having a foxing-like band applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper, other, valued over $6.50 but not over $12/pair. Style 7501 was classified under subheading 6404.11.80, HTSUS, which provides for sports footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials, other, valued over $6.50 but not over $12/pair. Styles 5006 and 6006 were classified under subheading 6404.11.20, HTSUS, which provides for sports footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile material, 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. Style 9230 was classified under subheading 6404.11.90, HTSUS, which provides for sports footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials, other, valued over $12/pair. The entry covering the above-listed styles was liquidated on February 18, 1984. The protest was timely filed on April 12, 1994. ISSUE: What is the constituent material which comprises the greatest external surface area of the footwear uppers (ESAU)? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Classification of goods under the HTSUS is governed by the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's). GRI 1 provides that "classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes and, provided such headings or notes do not otherwise require, according to [the remaining GRI's]." In other words, classification is governed first by the terms of the headings of the tariff and any relative section or chapter notes. The competing provisions read, as follows: 6402 Other footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics: Sports footwear: * * * 6402.19 Other: 6402.19.10 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 foxing or a foxing-like band applied or molded at the sole and overlapping the upper and except footwear 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). . . . . * * * Other: * * * 6402.19.70 Valued over $6.50 but not over $12/pair * * * 6404 Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: Footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics: 6404.11 Sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: 6404.11.20 Having uppers of which over 50 percent of the external surface area (including any leather accessories or reinforce- ments such as those mentioned in note 4(a) to this chapter is leather. . . . . * * * Other: Valued over $3 but not over $6.50/pair: 6404.11.70 Other. . . . . . . 6404.11.80 Valued over $6.50 but not over $12/pair. . . . . . . Note 4(a) to chapter 64, HTSUS, reads, as follows: 4. Subject to note 3 to this chapter: (a) 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[.] The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System explanatory Notes to the HTSUS (EN), although not dispositive, should be looked to for the proper interpretation of the HTSUS. See T.D. 89-80, 54 FR 35127, 25128 (August 23, 1989). General EN (D) to chapter 64, HTSUS, which is relevant here, reads, in pertinent part as follows: If the upper consists of two or more materials, classification is determined by the constituent material which has the greatest external surface area, no account being taken of accessories or reinforcements such as ankle patches, protective or ornamental strips or edging, other ornamentation (e.g., tassels, pompons or braid), buckles, tabs, eyelet stays, laces or slide fasteners. In Headquarters Ruling Letter (HRL) 953556 dated April 9, 1993, Customs took the position that "the term 'accessories or reinforcements,' although not fully defined, includes any additional material added to an otherwise completed upper as long as the underlying material is a plausible upper material, if not the best material." See HRL 084013 dated March 26, 1990. It is our opinion that the mesh textile underlying the plastic or leather overlays is a plausible upper material and should be included in determining the constituent material of the uppers. A laboratory analysis of the styles involved revealed that after the accessories and reinforcements were removed, the uppers were almost entirely of textile material [mesh]. Thus, after note 4(a) to chapter 64, HTSUS, supra, is applied, the uppers of the subject styles are almost entirely textile material which mandates their classification under heading 6404, HTSUS. Protestant cites HRL 085381 dated November 21, 1989, concerning the tariff classification of a glass beaded shoe as authority for his position that the uppers of the footwear styles in issue should be considered plastic rather than textile. The woman's shoe involved in HRL 085381 had an upper the external surface area of which was almost entirely of glass beads except for small gaps between the beads where portions of the underlying fabric were visible. Although the underlying textile was a plausible upper material, Customs ruled that the beaded shoe was more accurately described as having a glass upper instead of a textile upper. The rationale for this position was that the beads were more than a mere accessory or reinforcement because they were so extensive and clearly constituted a significant portion of the ESAU of the shoe. Further, because of the expense and work involved in attaching the glass beads to the upper, the beads were considered to constitute more than an ankle patch, edging, ornamentation or buckle. Protestant would apply the same rationale used to justify the result reached in HRL 085381 to the subject samples. HRL 085381 has no application here because the ESAU of the beaded shoe was covered almost entirely with glass beads and with very little textile material showing. In the instant case substantial amounts of textile material [mesh] are visible on the surface. Classification of style 7001 under subheading 6402.19.70, HTSUS, with duty at the rate of 90 cents per pair plus 20% ad valorem was incorrect. It is properly classifiable under subheading 6404.11.80, HTSUS, with duty at the rate of 90 cents per pair plus 20% ad valorem. HOLDING: The constituent material which comprises the greatest external surface area of the footwear uppers is textile material. Styles 7001 and 7501 are dutiable at the rate of 90 cents per pair plus 20% ad valorem under subheading 6404.11.80, HTSUS. Styles 5006 and 6006 are dutiable at the rate of 10.5% ad valorem under subheading 6404.11.20, HTSUS. Style 9230 is dutiable at the rate of 20% ad valorem under subheading 6404.11.90, HTSUS. The protest should be denied. In accordance with Section 3A(11)(b) of Customs Directive 099 3550-065, 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 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, Freedom of Information Act and other public access channels. Sincerely, John Durant, Director Commercial Rulings Division

NY L86130 July 15, 2005 CLA-2:64:RR:NC::247 L86130 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.80, 6404.19.80 Ms. Florence Lam Marubeni America Corporation 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017-3984 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China. Dear Ms. Lam: This letter replaces NY L85763 which contains a clerical error in the description of the merchandise. In your letter dated June 15, 2005 you requested a tariff classification ruling for children’s footwear from China. You have submitted samples of styles TRC 1025, TRC 1034, TRC 1035 and TRC 1037. All four styles are children’s low-cut, sneaker type, shoes that have rubber/plastics outer soles. You have provided percentage measurements for the uppers of all four styles indicating that textile material predominates by external surface area. Per telephone discussions with National Import Specialist, Richard Foley, you were informed that this information may be verified upon importation. TRC 1025, TRC 1035 and TRC 1037 all have hook & loop closure systems. The applicable subheading for these three styles will be 6404.11.80, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (HTS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics and uppers of textile material, tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like, other, valued over $6.50 but not over $12/pair. The general rate of duty will be 90 cents per pair plus 20 percent ad valorem. TRC 1034 is a slip-on shoe. The unit-molded rubber/plastics outer sole overlaps the upper by more than 3/16 inch and is a foxing or foxing-like band. The applicable subheading for this style will be 6404.19.80, HTS, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics and uppers of textile material, other, valued over $6.50 but not over $12/pair. The general rate of duty will be 90 cents per pair plus 20 percent ad valorem. We note that the submitted samples have a country of origin label sewn to the base of the tongue or some other inconspicuous place inside the shoe. 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." We further note that the shoe boxes submitted along with the sample footwear have “TSUKIHOSHI” trademark “ESTABLISHED IN JAPAN SINCE 1873” printed in large lettering on the box top. If the shoes of foreign origin are conspicuously and legibly marked with their country of origin, then marking the unsealed shoe box with the country of origin of the shoe is unnecessary, provided that the boxes have no place or locality references printed on them. Customs has previously held that cardboard shoe boxes are disposable containers excepted from marking with their own country of origin under 19 C.F.R. 134.24(c)(1). However, if the shoe box has a locality reference other than the country of origin of the imported footwear, it must be marked with the country of origin of the imported footwear in a conspicuous place to satisfy the requirements of 19 C.F.R. 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, Richard Foley at 646-733-3042. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division

N004356 December 22, 2006 CLA-2-64:RR:SP:247 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.70 Ms. Doreen Rizzo Converse One High Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: The tariff classification of a footwear/pen set Dear Ms. Rizzo: In your letter dated December 8, 2006, you requested a tariff classification ruling for SR# KD034-07H-477, a child’s size 13 “Chuck Taylor” basketball shoe with two small “Sharpie” felt-tipped pens attached by means of a plastic tie. You suggest that the shoe/pen item should be classified as a “composite good.” The two different colored marking pens are provided to enable the purchaser to color the shoes to their liking. Classification of merchandise under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (HTSUS), is in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI).GRI 2(b) states in part, that the classification of goods consisting of more than one material or substance shall be according to the principles of GRI 3. GRI 3 states that, when goods are prima facie classifiable under two or more headings, classification shall be effected as follows:(a) ...when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods...those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods.(b) Mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to 3(a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, insofar as this criterion is applicable. The Explanatory Note (EN) to GRI 3, provides, in part:(IX) For the purposes of this Rule, composite goods made up of different components shall be taken to mean not only those in which the components are attached to each other to form a practically inseparable whole but also those with separable components, provided these components are adapted one to the other and are mutually complementary and that together they form a whole which would not normally be offered for sale in separate parts. The footwear/pen combination is not a composite good for tariff classification purposes. The Explanatory Notes for GRI 3 further state that the term "goods put up in sets for retail sale" means goods that:(a) consist of at least two different articles prima facie classifiable in different headings (or, by GRI 6, subheadings).(b) consist of products or articles put together to meet a particular need or carry out a specific activity; and (c) are put up in a manner suitable for sale directly to users without repacking.The footwear/pen combination constitute a “set” in that it meets all the requirements listed in the Explanatory Notes for GRI 3. Specifically, the footwear and pens are prima facie classifiable in different headings. They are put up together to meet a particular need (e.g. to color the footwear), and are sold together in a shoebox directly to the consumer. The essential character of the footwear/pen combination set is imparted by the footwear. The applicable subheading for the “Chuck Taylor” basketball shoe and pen set will be 6404.11.70, HTSUS, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics and uppers of textile materials: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued over $3 but not over $6.50/pair, other. The general rate of duty will be 90 cents/pair plus 37.5 percent ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. 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, Richard Foley at 646-733-3042. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division

NY H86197 January 11, 2002 CLA-2-64:RR:NC:347:H86197 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.80 Mr. John Pellegrini Ross & Hardies 65 East 55th Street New York, NY 10022-3219 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Mr. Pellegrini: In your letter dated December 12, 2001, you requested a tariff classification ruling for a sample of footwear identified as Pattern No. 34223 on behalf of Elan-Polo, Inc. You describe the merchandise which is the subject of this ruling request as a woman’s five-eyelet shoe. The shoe is an athletic shoe with an upper of textile material and an outer sole of rubber/plastics. The shoe does not cover the ankle and has a foxing tape encircling the shoe. The upper is composed of a three-ply material consisting of a thin leather layer sandwiched between a textile inner lining and a textile outer layer. The leather layer is lasted under and cemented to the outer sole. The textile outer layer is the only component material visible on the surface of the shoe. While it is not lasted under nor cemented to the outer sole, it is however secured beneath the foxing tape. You contend that the shoe has an upper of leather and the textile material should be viewed as accessory or reinforcement per Note 4(a), Chapter 64, Harmonized tariff Schedule of the United states (HTS). This contention is based upon your interpretation of Hi-Tech Sports USA v. United States; Slip-Op 96-139 dated August 16, 1996. In that decision, leather overlays atop a textile upper were considered external surface area of the upper by the court because they were lasted under and cemented to the outer sole thereby contributing structural strength to the shoe. In general, the external surface area of the upper (ESAU) for footwear classification is 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 addition, factors such as visibility, material plausibility, completeness and structure are evaluated for ESAU determinations when footwear uppers consist of multiple materials. It is the opinion of this office that the external textile material imparts the ESAU for Pattern No. 34223 in terms of visibility, plausibility, completeness and structure. Textile is the only material visible on the surface of the upper. The textile is also not like the examples of accessories and reinforcements mentioned in Note 4 (a), Chapter 64 HTS. You have provided a value for Pattern no. 34223 of between $6.50 and $12/pair. The applicable subheading for the Pattern No. 34223 will be 6404.11.80 (HTS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber/plastics and uppers of textile, sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like, other, valued over $6.50 but not over $12/pair. The general rate of duty will be 90 cents/pair plus 20 percent ad valorem. The submitted sample of Pattern No. 34223 is not marked with the country of origin. The marking statute, section 304, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1304), provides that, unless excepted, 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 its container) will permit, in such a 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, Richard Foley at 646-733-3042. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division

N144457 February 18, 2011 CLA-2-64:OT:RR:NC:N4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.7060 Mr. Mitchell D. Miller Doing His Work First, Inc. 250 Grady Montgomery Drive, Suite D Jackson, TN 38301 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Mr. Miller: In your electronic ruling request submitted on January 21, 2011 you requested a tariff classification ruling for a shoe sole (base) and three styles of “interchangeable” shoe uppers, known collectively as “Fit Ur Mood” shoes. The illustrative sample identified in descriptive literature as style WBM6004, is an ankle high lace-up “athletic” shoe upper of 100% pu (polyurethane) rubber or plastics materials. Style WBM4003 is an ankle high lace-up “athletic” shoe upper of 100% textile materials. Style WCL8006 is a low cut lace-up “athletic” shoe upper of 75% pu (polyurethane) rubber or plastics materials and 25% textile materials, thereby making it predominately rubber/plastics for tariff classification purposes. These interchangeable uppers are to be attached individually to a rubber/plastics outer sole/sole (base) by means of a slide fastener, one half of which is attached to the sole at the feather line with the corresponding half attached to the upper. These “Fit Ur Mood” shoes are marketed as an “innovative shoe technology that lets you change your shoe style as quick as you can zip of the zipper! With each shoe purchase you will get 3 pairs of shoes!” You state that the customer’s order will be packaged for retail sale and shipped in a shoe box and will include one sole (and insole) and three uppers (including laces). In a subsequent communication with our office, you stated that these three upper styles are for women, only, and provided an F.O.B. value of $3.02 for style WBM4003, the textile upper. Classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (HTSUS) is governed by the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's). GRI 3(b) provides for composite goods made up of different components. Explanatory Note IX to GRI 3(b) provides that composite goods can consist of separable components, provided these components are adapted to one another and are mutually complementary and that together they form a whole that would not normally be offered for sale separately. The sole (base) and interchangeable uppers are a composite good. GRI 3 (a) states that the heading which provides the most specific description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description. However, when two or more headings each refer to part only of the materials or substances contained in mixed or composite goods or to part only of the items in a set put up for retail sale, those headings are to be regarded as equally specific in relation to those goods, even if one of them gives a more complete or precise description of the goods.  3(b) Mixtures, composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, and goods put up in sets for retail sale, which cannot be classified by reference to 3(a), shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character, insofar as this criterion is applicable.  3(c) When goods cannot be classified by reference to 3(a) or 3(b); they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration.     The footwear (base) with interchangeable uppers is not classifiable in accordance with GRI 3(a) or (b) because the competing headings are equally specific. Therefore, GRI 3(c) determines the applicable subheading. Footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics falls within heading 6402, HTSUS. Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials falls within heading 6404, HTSUS; therefore, by application of GRI 3(c) the footwear is classified in heading 6404, HTSUS. The applicable subheading for style WBM4003 will be 6404.11.7060 , Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (HTSUS), which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued over $3 but not over $6.50/pair: other: for women. The rate of duty will be 90 cents/pair + 37.5 % ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. 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, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division

HQ 087842 November 30, 1990 CLA-2 CO:R:C:G 087842 KWM CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF: 6403.19; 6404.11.90 Ms. Pamela Jo Waddell Barnhart & Associates 10914 S. La Cienega Boulevard Inglewood, California 90304 RE: Snowboard ski boot; footwear; sports footwear; ski boot; upper of textile material; upper less than 50 percent leather; Upper of leather; outer sole of plastics. Dear Ms. Waddell: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated July 31, 1990, regarding the tariff classification of boots for snowboard skiing. Your letter and a sample of the goods have been forwarded to this office for a ruling. After consideration of the information and samples provided, we have determined that the boots should be classified as set forth below. FACTS: You requested a classification ruling for two styles of boots, both for use with a snowboard ski. They are referred to as the "Alpine" and "Flight" models. Both styles consist of two parts: a removable inner liner and an outer shell. Although your letter did not state that such was the case, we assume for the purposes of this ruling that the liner and outer shell will be imported as a retail unit. We consider the liner to be part of a set with the shell, which will provide classification for the merchandise as a whole. The "Alpine" shell consists of two primary materials: textile and plastics. The foot portion is made entirely of molded plastic, as is the outer sole. The upper portion of the shell is made of a thick plastic layer to which a white woven fabric lining and a black woven fabric outer layer are laminated. The tongue of the shell is plastic, as are the trim and decorative overlay pieces. The "Flight" shell is similar in most respects except that the uppers are made of leather, rather than a textile/plastics combination. The outer sole, trim and tongue pieces appear identical. The liner also appears to be identical in both styles of boot. ISSUE: How are these goods classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA) is made in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's). The systematic detail of the harmonized system is such that virtually all goods are classified by application of GRI 1, that is, according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relevant Section or Chapter Notes. In the event that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRIs may be applied, taken in order. The headings of Chapter 64 provide for the classification of footwear. The provisions of each heading are distinguished by the component material which comprises the outer sole and/or the upper. The outer soles of both styles are, as stated, of plastics. The uppers of the Flight model are clearly of leather. Classification of the Alpine model depends on whether or not the plastics and textile uppers of these boots are considered textile materials. We believe that they are. Our decision is based on the information you provided, and an examination which indicates that the surface of the uppers is primarily textile material according to Legal Note 4(a) to Chapter 64 (no account being taken of ornamentation, etc.). This finding is subject to verification by the port of entry. Below, we address first the classification of the Alpine model before turning to the Flight style. Alpine model In reviewing the headings eligible for classification, we note the terms of heading 6404, HTSUSA: 6404 Footwear with outer soles of rubber. plastics. leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: Footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics: These would appear to include the Alpine boots. Within this heading, subheading 6404.11, HTSUSA, provides for: 6404.11 Sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: The term "sports footwear" is defined in Subheading Legal Note 1 to Chapter 64, HTSUSA, as: 1. For the purposes of subheading 6402.11, 6402.19, 6403.19, and 6404.11, the expression "sports footwear" applies only to: (a) Footwear which is designed for a sporting activity and has, or has provision for the attachment of spikes, sprigs, cleats, stops, clips bars or the like; (b) Skating boots, ski-boots, and cross-country ski footwear, wrestling boots, boxing boots and cycling shoes. (Emphasis added). Further, Additional U.S. Legal Note 2 provides that: 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 note 1 above), whether or not principally used for such athletic games or purposes. (Emphasis added). The provisions of the subheading read in conjunction with the Legal Notes, as prescribed by GRI 1, clearly indicate that the instant merchandise is encompassed by the subheading terms regardless of whether we consider them "ski-boots" "sports footwear" or "athletic footwear other than sports footwear." That intent is obvious from a reading of the tariff provisions. The instant merchandise is a type of footwear, and snowboarding (or snowboard skiing) is as much a sport (or athletic activity) as the other activities specified in the subheading and legal notes. Further, the notes make clear that, at least for "athletic footwear", the item need not be used principally for such athletic purposes. It is sufficient, as in this case, that the boots possess attributes which indicate their suitability for a sport or athletic activity: a stiff sole, textile laminated plastic uppers, and an insulated liner. Some features indicate a design for sporting activity, and serve to distinguish the sample boots from ordinary insulated winter boots. Other features are more common. Footwear with less than 50 percent exterior surface of leather is classified in the "other" provisions of 6404.11, HTSUSA. This subheading is further divided based on the value per pair. The instant goods described as the "Alpine" style have less than 50 percent exterior surface of leather, and are valued at over $12.00 per pair, as provided for in subheading 6404.11.90, HTSUSA. Flight model In reviewing the headings eligible for classification of the second sample, we note the terms of heading 6403, HTSUSA: 6403 Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of leather: The uppers on the "Flight" model are clearly leather and the outer soles are plastic. The above heading would appear to provide for the this item. Subheading 6403.11, HTSUSA, further provides for: Sports footwear: 6403.11 Ski-boots and cross-country ski footwear: 6403.19 Other: Classification in these subheadings requires specific determinations: are the boots "sports" footwear as described by the legal notes? If so, are they considered "ski-boots"? If not, the boots will be classified elsewhere in heading 6403, HTSUSA. We find that the boots in this case are considered "sports" footwear for classification purposes, but are not "ski-boots" as contemplated by the nomenclature. The nomenclature and legal notes contemplate a distinction between sports and athletic footwear ("other than sports footwear"). In the case of the Alpine boots, that distinction did not impact on classification under the terms of heading 6404, HTSUSA. For the Flight boots, under heading 6403, HTSUSA, it becomes an issue. To determine whether the Flight boots are "sports" footwear, we look subheading legal note 1 to Chapter 64 which outlines the features found on sports footwear. Note 1 provides first that the item should be designed for a sporting activity and that such footwear have or have provision for the attachment cleats, spikes, or the like. In addition, the note sets out a list of footwear that would be classified as sports footwear. We believe that the list is neither exclusive, nor intended to merely provide examples of the footwear described in the first part of the note. Numerous types of sports footwear may fit the description of the note (for example baseball cleats or track spikes) but are not listed. In addition, not all of the examples have attachments or provision for attachment of spikes, cleats, etc (wrestling boots, boxing boots). If footwear is designed for a specific sporting activity, if it is not well suited for general athletic purposes (as "athletic footwear" would be), and if it is used primarily for the specific activity for which it is designed, then we are of the opinion that it should be classified as sports footwear. In this case, special design is evidenced by the attributes we noted above, many of which also indicate that the boots are not susceptible to general cold weather outdoor use. For example the rigid sole may aid in the control of the snowboard, but makes walking and casual wear unlikely. We believe that these boots will be used primarily for snowboarding. Lastly, we do not find that boots such as these are "ski- boots." Following the above reasoning, the boots here do not exhibit the design features found on either downhill or cross- country ski-boots. They do not have heel and toe projections required for insertion into quick release bindings on downhill skis. They are lighter and much more flexible across the arch than downhill ski boots. However, they do not possess the flexibility necessary for telemarking or cross-country skiing. While the term "ski-boot" cannot be defined too rigidly, and tariff terms may properly include newly developed variants of traditional articles, we find that the boots at issue here are too dissimilar to be classified under the provision for ski boots. Subheading 6403.19, HTSUSA, provides for sports footwear, other. Because your letter did not indicate whether the boots are for "men, youth or boys", we cannot provide an exact classification ruling. The boots will however be classified in provision under subheading 6403.19, HTSUSA. HOLDING: The boots described as the Alpine style are classified in subheading 6404.11.90, HTSUSA, as foot wear with outer soles of plastics and uppers of textile materials, sports footwear, valued over $12 per pair. They are dutiable at the rate of 20 percent ad valorem. The boots described as the Flight style are classified in subheading 6403.19, HTSUSA, as footwear with outer soles of plastics and uppers of leather, other sports footwear. The duty rate on these goods is dependent on whether they are designed for use by men, youths and boys or by other individuals. Sincerely, John A. Durant Director Commercial Rulings Division

NY M83973 June 14, 2006 CLA-2:64:RR:NC:TA:247 M83973 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.80 Ms. Susan Morelli Converse One High Street North Andover, MA 01845 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China. Dear Ms. Morelli: In your letter dated May 31, 2006 you requested a tariff classification ruling. You have submitted a sample that is a variation of a traditional high-top sneaker, identified as “Chuck Taylor All Star Double Upper.” The shoe covers the ankle and has a rubber/plastic athletic outer sole, a foxing or foxing-like band, a rubber toe bumper and a lace tie closure system. The shoe features two uppers, a complete inner textile upper and an additional outer textile upper, in a different color, that covers most of the inner upper. The inner upper is lasted under and cemented to filler material under the mid-sole. The outer upper is permanently attached by vulcanization to the foxing band. Both uppers have metal eyelets to accommodate laces and feature the “Converse Chuck Taylor All Star” logo printed on the medial side of the quarter. You believe that the inner upper should be the determining factor when deciding the external surface area for tariff classification purposes. Note 3(a), Chapter 64, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), provides for purposes of this chapter: 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 HRL 051937 dated June 6, 1977, the term "exterior surface area of the upper" (ESAU) was defined under the TSUS as "whatever is visible and tactile on the surface." On November 17, 1993, in Treasury Decision (T.D.) 93-88 (27 Cust. Bull & Dec. No. 46), Customs published certain footwear definitions used by Customs import specialists in classifying footwear under Chapter 64, HTSUS. Inasmuch as these definitions were provided merely as guidelines and are not to be construed as Customs rulings, they are not dispositive. However, it is useful to consult them. On page 3 of that document, the term "External Surface" was defined, in pertinent part, as follows:The "external surface" of the upper is, in general, the outside surface of what you see covering the foot (and leg, if applicable) when the shoe is worn. Both the outer upper and the visible portion of the inner upper are tactile and visible on the external surface of the shoe when it is worn. The outer upper on “Chuck Taylor All Star Double Upper” is not like the examples of accessories or reinforcements mentioned in Note 3(a). In this regard, the visible portions of both the inner and outer uppers are included in external surface area measurements. Both the inner and outer uppers are lined with woven textile material in coordinated colors. You state that the outer upper is “designed to be rolled down” thereby exposing the lining material to the external surface. T.D. 93-88 also provides, in pertinent part, that the external surface includes the top part of the lining of boots if the boot is likely to be worn sometimes with the top of the shaft folded or rolled down, thus exposing that part of the lining to view, as a “cuff.” Many factors are considered in determining whether or not footwear is designed to be worn in a cuffed position. The fact that the outer upper on this shoe does not lie flat, when folded over, leads us to believe that this particular style is not designed to be worn in a folded or cuffed position. You further state that an additional color coordinated pair of laces will be imported with the shoe. HRL 086029 dated February 15, 1990, provides guidance in situations where more than one pair of laces is included with imported footwear. It provides, in pertinent part, that where multiple pairs of laces are imported with one pair of athletic-type shoes which can accommodate, through styling and use of eyelets, all of the pairs of laces simultaneously, and those pairs of laces are of differing colors and/or designs, absent evidence that the laces are intended to be used separately, a presumption is raised that the multiple pairs of laces are intended to be worn simultaneously. The one pair of shoes plus all pairs of laces is therefore considered a single article. The applicable subheading for “Chuck Taylor All Star Double Upper” will be 6404.11.80, HTSUS, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics and uppers of textile material, tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like, other, valued over $6.50 but not over $12/pair. The general rate of duty will be 90 cents/pair plus 20 percent ad valorem. We note that the submitted sample is not marked with the country of origin. Therefore, if imported as is, it 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, Richard Foley at 646-733-3042. Sincerely, Robert B. Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division

HQ 086328 April 18, 1990 CLA-2:CO:R:C:G 086328 SR CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.7030; 6307.90.9050 Patty Iacono Gladish & Associates 215 Long Beach Boulevard, #511 Long Beach, CA 90802-3100 RE: Shoes with hook and loop decorative attachments Dear Ms. Iacono: This is in reference to your letter dated December 20, 1989, requesting the tariff classification of shoes and hook and loop fiber strips under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States Annotated (HTSUSA). Samples produced in Korea were provided. FACTS: The merchandise at issue is shoes with decorative textile strips that attach to the upper. The shoes are sneakers with a rubber foxing tape reinforcement, and textile uppers that are composed of hook and loop Velcro-type material. The shoe has a calendered sole. Also at issue are woven man-made fiber strips with various dinosaur designs printed on the face. The back of the strips are also of the hook and loop Velcro-type fiber so that they will stick to the upper of the shoe for decoration. The strips are rectangular or square and are approximately 1 1/2 to 2 inches by 1 inch. Some of the strips will be imported with the shoe and others will be imported separately. The strips have cut lines of demarcation between each design. A few threads have been left intact between the strips so that they remain connected yet can be easily separated. -2- The sample that was submitted with this ruling request was not properly marked with the country of origin. 19 CFR 134, Customs Regulations, requires that the marking of the country of origin be legible, permanent, and conspicuous. The marking in the shoe at issue is in a conspicuous location; however, it is not legible nor permanent because the printing is very light and it would probably rub off as the shoe is worn. The fabric strips that are imported on the shoe do not need separate marking. The fabric strips that are imported separately do need country of origin marking. If they are imported in the packaging in which they will be sold to the consumer, then it is sufficient to put the marking on the package rather than on the strips themselves. ISSUE: 1. What is the classification of the shoe at issue? 2. What is the classification of the textile strips at issue when imported separately? 3. What is the classification of the textile strips at issue when imported with the shoes? LAW AND ANALYSIS: ISSUE 1 Classification of goods under the HTSUSA is governed by the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI), taken in order. GRI 1 provides that classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes. Heading 6404, HTSUSA, provides for shoes with outer soles of rubber and textile uppers. The shoes at issue have a rubber sole and rubber foxing tape. The hook and loop upper of the shoe is made up of textile materials. Therefore, the shoes at issue are classifiable under heading 6404, HTSUSA. ISSUE 2 Heading 6307, HTSUSA, provides for other made up textile articles. Heading 6307, HTSUSA, is in Section XI. Note 7 to -3- Section XI defines "made-up" as follows: For the purposes of this section, the expression "made-up" means: (a) Cut otherwise than into squares or rectangles; (b) Produced in the finished state, ready for use (or merely needing separation by cutting dividing threads) without sewing or other working (for example, certain dusters, towels, tablecloths, scarf squares, blankets); (c) Hemmed or with rolled edges, or with a knotted fringe at any of the edges, but excluding fabrics the cut edges of which have been prevented from unraveling by whipping or by other simple means; (d) Cut to size and having undergone a process of drawn thread work; (e) Assembled by sewing, gumming or otherwise . . . (f) Knitted or crocheted to shape, presented in the form of a number of items in the length. While Note 7(a) states that goods cut into squares or rectangles cannot be considered to be made-up, Note 7(b) lists many items that in their finished state are usually in a square or rectangle shape. Therefore, it is obvious that articles that are excluded by Note 7(a) are items that are merely cut into shapes or rectangles without any further processing as listed in Notes 7(b) through 7(f). The hook and loop fabric strips at issue are cut into squares and rectangles; however, they are produced in the finished state, ready for use, (perhaps needing to be separated), as stated in Note 7(b). Therefore the strips at issue that are imported separately from the shoe are classifiable as other made- up articles of textile. ISSUE 3 The shoe at issue is imported with some of the hook and loop -4- strips attached to the upper. Under GRI 3(b) goods that are prima facie classifiable under two or more headings that are composite goods consisting of different materials or made up of different components, shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character. The Explanatory Notes provide the official interpretation of the tariff at the international level. The Explanatory Notes for GRI 3(b) state that composite goods include goods with separable components, provided these components are adapted one to the other and are mutually complementary and that together they form a whole which would not normally be offered for sale in separate parts. The shoes and textile strips at issue are prima facie classifiable under two different headings. They are separate components that are mutually complementary. Shoes are not normally sold with decorative strips; however, hook and loop strips need to be attached to other hook and loop articles to be used. Although textile strips are not normally sold with shoes, in this case they would not normally be sold separately from the other hook and loop item to which they will be attached. It is the shoe that provides the essential character of the composite goods. The shoes with strips attached for importation are classifiable as footwear. HOLDING: ISSUE 1 Assuming that the shoes at issue are valued between $3.00 and $6.50 per pair, they are classifiable under subheading 6404.11.7030, HTSUSA, which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber and uppers of textile materials, sports footwear: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like, other, valued over $3.00 but not over $6.50 per pair, other, for men. The rate of duty is 90 cents per pair plus 37.5 percent ad valorem. ISSUE 2 The decorative hook and loop fabric pieces at issue are classifiable under subheading 6307.90.9050, HTSUSA, which -5- provides for other made-up articles, other. The rate of duty is 7 percent ad valorem. ISSUE 3 The decorative hook and loop fabric pieces at issue, when imported with the shoe, are classifiable under subheading 6404.11.7030, HTSUSA, as a composite good with the shoe, as footwear with rubber soles and textile uppers. The rate of duty is 90 cents per 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

NY I88613 December 9, 2002 CLA-2-64:RR:NC:TA:347 I88613 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO. 6404.11.50, 6404.19.50, 6404.19.20 Mr. Adam Jackson Romika USA, Inc. 8730 NW 36th Avenue Miami, FL 33147 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China. Dear Mr. Jackson: In your letter dated November 19, 2002 you requested a classification ruling for four styles of footwear to be imported under different scenarios. You have submitted samples of all four items which you identify as follows: Style Y-9023: Textile upper with injected rubber sole. Ex-factory cost less than $3.00 Style W-9257: Synthetic upper with injected rubber sole. Ex-factory cost less than $3.00 Style G-9068: Synthetic upper with injected P.V.C. sole. Ex-factory cost less than $6.00 Style Y-9032: Synthetic upper with felt lining. Injection-molded to P.V.C. sole. Ex-factory cost less than $6.00 Style Y-9023 is a child’s “athletic” shoe with a textile upper and outer sole of rubber or plastics material. The shoe does not cover the ankle and is secured to the foot by means of a lace closure system. The unit molded outer sole overlaps the upper and is a foxing or foxing-like band. The applicable subheading for style Y-9023 will be 6404.11.50, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, (HTS) which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics and uppers of textile materials, tennis shoes, basketball shoes, training shoes, gym shoes and the like, other, valued not over $3/pair. The rate of duty will be 48 percent ad valorem. Style W-9257 is a child’s or ladies shoe with an outer sole of rubber or plastics and an upper of textile material. The shoe does not cover the ankle and is secured to the foot by means of a lace closure system. The unit molded outer sole overlaps the upper and is a foxing or foxing-like band. The applicable subheading for style W-9257 will be 6404.19.50, (HTS) which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics and uppers of textile materials, other, other, valued not over $3/pair. The rate of duty will be 48 percent ad valorem. Style G-9068 and style Y-9032 are children’s cold weather boots with outer soles of rubber or plastics and uppers of textile materials. The boots cover the ankle but not the knee. Style G-9068 is fleece lined and trimmed and secured by means of a hook and loop closure. Style Y-9032 is lined with felt material and has a lace closure system. The applicable subheading for style G-9068 and Y-9032 will be 6404.19.20, (HTS) which provides for footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics and uppers of textile, other, footwear 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. The rate of duty will be 37.5 percent ad valorem. You state that you are planning to import these shoes into the United States, under three potential scenarios; Complete shoes imported from China. Shoes assembled in Mexico with uppers from non-NAFTA country. Non-NAFTA content represents less than 40% of the total value. Shoes assembled in CBI country with uppers from neither NAFTA nor CBI country. Non-NAFTA/non-CBI contents represent less than 40% of the total value. You have not provided this office with information relating to the manufacturing process to be performed in Mexico other than to say that shoes will be assembled in Mexico with uppers from non-NAFTA country. Non-NAFTA content represents less than 40% of the total value. The North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA) Annex 401, Chapter 64, provides that a change to headings 6401 through 6405 from any heading outside that group, except from subheading 6406.10, (emphasis added), provided there is a regional value content of not less than 55 percent under the net cost method is needed for NAFTA eligibility. Subheading 6406.10 (HTS) provides for parts of footwear, uppers and parts thereof. Since the uppers originate in a non-NAFTA country, footwear produced in a NAFTA country with these uppers is not eligible for NAFTA duty preference upon importation into the United States. You have also not provided this office with information relating to the manufacturing process to be performed in an unnamed CBI country other than to say that shoes will be assembled in CBI country with uppers from neither NAFTA nor CBI country. Non-NAFTA/non-CBI contents represent less than 40% of the total value. Section 222 of the Customs and Trade Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-382) amended U.S. Note 2, Subchapter II, Chapter 98, HTS, to provide for the duty-free treatment of articles (other than textile and apparel articles, and petroleum and petroleum products) which are assembled or processed in a Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) beneficiary country wholly (emphasis added) of fabricated components or ingredients (except water) of U.S. origin. U.S. Note 2(b) subchapter II, Chapter 98 (HTS) provides as follows: No article (except a textile article, apparel article or petroleum, or any product derived from petroleum, provided for in heading 2709 or 2710) may be treated as a foreign article, or as subject to duty, if— the article is— assembled or processed in whole of fabricated components that are a product of the United States, or/and processed in whole of ingredients (other than water) that are a product of the United States, in a beneficiary country, and neither the fabricated components, materials or ingredients, after exportation from the United States, nor the article itself, before importation into the United States, enters the commerce of any foreign country other than a beneficiary country. Since the finished footwear is not assembled or processed wholly of fabricated components or ingredients (except water) of U.S. origin, it is not eligible for duty free treatment upon importation into the United States. The submitted samples are not marked with the country of origin. Therefore, if imported as is, 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 this ruling letter 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 this ruling, contact National Import Specialist, Richard Foley at (646) 733-3042. Sincerely, Robert Swierupski Director, National Commodity Specialist Division

N192658 December 7, 2011 CLA-2-64:OT:RR:NC:N4:447 CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.8990, 6404.19.8990 Ms. Wynoka Harris Skechers U.S.A., Inc. 225 S. Sepulveda Blvd. Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 RE: The tariff classification of footwear from China Dear Ms. Harris: In your letter dated November 7, 2011 you requested a tariff classification ruling for three styles of footwear. The submitted sample identified as style number “95650L,” is a children’s lace-up “athletic” shoe which has a textile upper that does not cover the ankle. The molded rubber or plastics sole which extends upward of the sides of the shoe overlaps the upper by ¼ of an inch or more and substantially encircles the entire shoe, thereby constituting a foxing or a foxing-like band. You provided an F.O.B. value of $7.45/pair. The applicable subheading for style number “95650L will be 6404.11.8990, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (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: tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: other: valued over $6.50 but not over $12.00/pair: other. The rate of duty will be 90 cents/pair + 20% ad valorem. The submitted sample identified as style “B,” is a children’s “athletic-type” shoe with a rubber or plastics outer sole and a foxing or a foxing-like band applied to it which overlaps the upper by ¼ of an inch or more. The textile upper which does not cover the ankle has a Velcro® closure on its lateral side and what appears to be decorative “hot melted” eyes on either side. The upper also features plastic “sequin-like” ornamentation on either side as well as on the vamp of the shoe and lights which illuminate when the forefoot portion of the shoe comes into contact with the ground. You provided an F.O.B. value of $9.70/pair and suggest classification under subheading 6404.11., HTSUS, which provides for athletic footwear. We disagree with this suggested classification. T.D. 93-88(27 Cust. Bull. & Dec. No.46), “Footwear Definitions” states in pertinent part; “Athletic” footwear does not include ‘shoes that resemble sport shoes but clearly could not be used at all in that sporting activity. Examples include sneakers with a sequined or extensively embroidered upper.’ It is also this office’s opinion that the lights on the vamp negate the classification as an athletic shoe under this subheading. The applicable subheading for style “B” will be 6404.19.8990, 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: footwear that is not sports/athletic; other: valued over $6.50 but not over $12.00/pair: other. The rate of duty will be 90 cents/pair + 20% ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for your convenience and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on World Wide Web at http://www.usitc.gov/tata/hts/. In reference to the submitted sample identified as style “A,” we are returning your request for a ruling, and any related samples, exhibits, etc.  This letter concerns your request for a classification ruling under the HTSUS for footwear with an outer sole composed, in part, of textile material.  On October 31, 2011, the President of the United States proclaimed the enactment of the modifications to the HTSUS set forth in Investigation No. 1205-8, which was conducted by the U.S. International Trade Commission pursuant to Section 1205(a) of the Omnibus Competitiveness Act of 1988 (19 U.S.C. §3005(a). These modifications, effective on December 3, 2011 per Federal Register Vol. 26 No. 213, dated November 3, 2011, include the addition of the new Additional U.S. Note 5 to Chapter 64, HTSUS (Note 5), which states, the following: For the purposes of determining the constituent material of the outer sole pursuant to Note 4(b) to this Chapter, no account shall be taken of textile materials which do not possess the characteristics usually required for normal use of an outer sole, including durability and strength. At this time, CBP is considering the interpretation of the note and the best method of communicating its proposed interpretation of the note. Such a determination will be made in the near future. For the present, CBP does not intend to issue prospective rulings on textile-soled footwear for outdoor use. Once that process is concluded, CBP intends to resume issuing prospective rulings. You may, if you wish, resubmit your request for a prospective ruling at that time. In the interim, as with other provisions of the HTSUS, you should use reasonable care to determine whether Note 5 applies to your merchandise. The above referenced file is hereby administratively closed. 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, Robert B. Swierupski Director National Commodity Specialist Division

HQ H012677 February 15, 2008 CLA-2 OT: RR: CTF: TCM H012677 ADK CATEGORY: Classification TARIFF NO.: 6404.11.90 Judith Haggin J.L. Haggin & Associates Co. 1100 S.W. Sixth Ave. Suite 212 Portland, OR 97204 RE: Request for reconsideration of New York Ruling Letter L85922, dated August 2, 2005; Classification of the Aquatic Training Shoe Dear Ms. Haggin: This letter is in response to your request of May 15, 2007, for reconsideration of New York Ruling Letter (NY) L85922. In that ruling, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) determined that the subject Aquatic Training Shoes are classifiable under subheading 6404.11.90, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). We have reviewed NY L85922 and found it to be correct. FACTS: The subject articles, identified as “Model Mako, Style AQx1001,” (Aquatic Training Shoe/ATS) are athletic-type shoes designed for water fitness and sold by the importer, AQx, Inc. They are marketed for use in vigorous activities such as running in water or aqua aerobics. The shoes have a predominately textile material upper that does not cover the ankle, with a rubber/plastics material external surface area structural reinforcements at the toes and along the sides and eyelet stays at the back. The shoes also feature a functional lace closure complete with an adjustable plastic cinch stop to tighten and hold the shoe on the foot. There are three, semi-rigid rubber/plastic wing-like protrusions, or “gills,” on both sides of the upper’s external surface and the shoe has a cemented-on, unit molded rubber/plastic material bottom/sole that overlaps the upper. These “gills” provide resistance when exercising in water and may also make walking on land for extended periods of time impractical. The shoes are valued at over $12 per pair. In your submission, you argue that CBP’s determination in NY L85922 was incorrect and that the Aquatic Training Shoe is properly classified under heading 9506, HTSUS, as equipment for general physical exercise. ISSUE: Are the Aquatic Training Shoes (ATS), Model Mako, Style AQ1004, classifiable as sports equipment of heading 9506, HTSUS, or are they classifiable in heading 6404, HTSUS, as footwear? LAW AND ANALYSIS: Classification under the HTSUSA is made in accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRIs). GRI 1 provides that the classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings of the tariff schedule and any relative section or Chapter notes. In the event that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of GRI 1, and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require, the remaining GRIs 2 through 6 may then be applied in order. The HTSUS provisions under consideration are as follows: 6404 Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile materials: Footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics: 6404.11 Sports footwear; tennis shoes, basketball shoes, gym shoes, training shoes and the like: * * * Other: * * * 6404.11.90 Valued over $12/pair * * * 9506 Articles and equipment for general physical exercise, gymnastics, athletics, other sports (including table-tennis) or outdoor games, not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter; swimming pools and wading pools; parts and accessories thereof: * * * Other: 9506.91.00 Articles and equipment for general physical exercise, gymnastics or athletics; parts and accessories thereof…. * * * 9506.91.0030 Other * * * In addition to the terms of the headings, classification of goods under the HTSUS is governed by any applicable section or Chapter notes. Note 1 to Chapter 95 provides, in pertinent part: 1. This Chapter does not cover: * * * (g) Sports footwear (other than skating boots with ice or roller skates attached) of Chapter 64, or sports headgear of Chapter 65. * * *   Note 1 to Chapter 64 provides, in pertinent part: * * * This Chapter does not cover: * * *  (f) Toy footwear or skating boots with ice or roller skates attached; shin-guards or similar protective sportswear (Chapter 95). * * * The subheading Note to Chapter 64 provides: For the purposes of subheadings 6402.12, 6402.19, 6403.12, 6403.19 and 6404.11, the expression “sports footwear” applies only to: Footwear which is designed for a sporting activity and has, or has a provision for the attachment of spikes, sprigs, cleats, stops, clips, bars or the like; Skating boots, ski-boots and cross-country ski footwear, snowboard boots, wrestling boots, boxing boots and cycling shoes. * * * The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System Explanatory Notes (ENs) constitute the official interpretation of the Harmonized System at the international level. While not legally binding nor dispositive, the ENs provide a commentary on the scope of each heading of the HTSUS and are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of these headings. See T.D. 89-80, 54 Fed. Reg. 35127, 35128 (August 23, 1989). The EN to heading 9506 (EN 95.06), HTSUS, provides, in pertinent part: This heading covers: * * * (B) Requisites for other sports and outdoor games (other than toys presented in sets, or separately, of heading 95.03), e.g.: * * * (2) Water-skis, surf-boards, sailboards, and other water-sport equipment, such as diving stages (platforms), chutes, drivers’ flippers and respiratory masks of a kind used without oxygen or compressed in air bottles, and simple underwater breathing tubes (generally known as “snorkels”) for swimmers or divers. * * * (13) Protective equipment for sports or games, e.g. fencing masks and breast plates, elbow and knee pads, cricket pads, shin-guards. * * * The heading excludes:  * * * (g) Sports footwear (other than ice or roller skating boots with skates attached) of Chapter 64 and sports headgear of Chapter 65. (Emphasis in original) * * * At issue is whether the ATS are identifiable as “sports footwear” or as “articles and equipment for general physical exercise.” The legal notes to Chapters 64 and 95 are mutually exclusive, i.e., footwear of Chapter 64 is excluded from classification in Chapter 95, while articles of general physical exercise of Chapter 95 are excluded from classification in Chapter 64. Classification of the subject article in one of the suggested headings prima facie excludes it from the other. In your request for reconsideration, you argue that the product at issue is clearly designed, marketed, sold and used as an article for physical exercise. Specifically, you state that “the design itself does not provide for the Sports Aquatic Training ‘shoe’ to be worn as footwear.” The “primary function of this article is to provide a means of attaching plastic gills located on the outside of the shoe to the foot, rather than to cover the foot.” According to EN 95.06, however, the determining factor in classification is whether the subject shoes are “requisites for other sports and outdoor games.” Although the manner in which a product is marketed, sold and used is relevant, it is a secondary consideration. The language of the HTSUS evidences intent that not all articles for use in sports are classified under heading 9506, HTSUS. The ENs to heading 9506 state that the heading covers three categories of merchandise: (A) Articles and equipment for general physical exercise, gymnastics or athletics; (B) Requisites for other sports and outdoor games; and (C) Swimming and paddling pools. Category (B) includes: “water-skis, surf-boards, sailboards, and other water-sport equipment,” and “protective equipment for sports or games.” See EN 95.06(B)(2) and (13), emphasis added. However, certain sports-related articles for use in sports are specifically excluded from Chapter 95, HTSUSA. For example, Note 1 to Chapter 95, HTSUSA, excludes sports footwear of Chapter 64. See HQ 967957, dated December 9, 2005. Although sports footwear may be used for water-sports, the ENs make clear that it is not a “requisite for other sports and outdoor games” within the meaning of heading 9506, HTSUS. CBP has previously considered the classification of water-sports accessories and apparel. In HQ 088542, dated May 1, 1992, an importer filed a protest after certain wetsuits, footgear, headgear and gloves were excluded from heading 9506, HTSUS, and classified instead in eo nomine headings. In determining that the imports were excluded from heading 9506, HTSUS, we noted: Customs has classified within heading 9506, HTSUSA, certain articles which protect or pad persons from the shock of blows, such as fencing masks or equestrian body protectors. This does not extend to textile garments worn while engaged in a sport, such as fencing suits or racing silks, or other more ordinary sports clothing which may also be required for participation or competition in sports activities…. A distinction exists among the headings of the nomenclature between clothing (including protective clothing) and protective equipment. * * * …wetsuits are specialized articles of sports clothing. The presence of protective features does not preclude classification as a garment…. Protestant's arguments that limitations on use and restraint of movement are also unpersuasive. Like other types of protective clothing, we do not consider it unusual that wetsuits are not the most comfortable garments or may be limited to specific sporting activities. * * * By an analysis parallel to that described above, footwear…made from neoprene/textile laminate and designed for use in a water-sport activity [is] not classifiable as "water-sports equipment", but [is] classifiable as sports footwear…. See also HQ 963430, dated July 10, 2001 (Excluded "Typhoon Booties,” designed for road or mountain bicycling from heading 9506, HTSUS. Although the boots protected against cold or water, they were not functionally similar to the examples of protective equipment classifiable under heading 9506, which are designed to ward of kicks, blows, stabs of a foil, etc.); and NY L89514, dated January 18, 2006 (Finding Foot Waders were classifiable in heading 6405, HTSUS, and excluded from heading 9506, HTSUS, because they did not contain any padding for protection against injury from blows, collisions, or flying objects. Consequently, they were not considered sports equipment). Applying the above-administrative precedent, and EN 95.06, we find that the subject Aquatic Training Shoes are not “requisites for sports or outdoor games. While the shoes are “protective” in the sense that they act as a barrier to certain elements, they are not similar to the protective exemplars referenced in the ENs to heading 9506, HTSUS. They do not feature any padding for protection against injury from blows or collisions. Furthermore, they are not a requirement for water-sports. As stated by the importer, the “primary function of this article is to provide a means of attaching plastic gills located on the outside of the shoe to the foot.” These plastic gills increase the beneficial effects of activities such as aqua aerobics or water running but are not necessary to engage in such activities. Although the “gills” make walking on land impractical, this fact alone does not necessitate classification in heading 9506, HTSUS. As noted in HQ 088542 “arguments [concerning] limitations on use and restraint of movement are…unpersuasive. Like other types of protective clothing, we do not consider it unusual that [the footwear]…may be limited to specific sporting activities.” We next consider whether the Aquatic Training Shoes meet the definition of “sports footwear” as set forth in the subheading note to chapter 64. That note requires that sports footwear must be “designed for a specific sporting activity” and must have, or provide for, “the attachment of spikes, sprigs, cleats, stops, clips, bars or the like.” Gills are not specifically named in this list of exemplars. Classification under the second provision of this note is therefore dependent upon the cannon of construction known as ejusdem generis, which means literally, “of the same class or kind.” “Where particular words of description are followed by general terms, the latter will be regarded as referring to things of a like class with those particularly described.” Nissho-Iwai American Corp. v. United States (Nissho), 10 CIT 154, 156 (1986). “As applicable to classification cases, ejusdem generis requires that the imported merchandise possess the essential characteristics or purposes that unite the articles enumerated eo nomine in order to be classified under the general terms.” Id. at 157. We will first consider whether the subject Aquatic Training Shoes are “designed for a specific sporting activity.” According to your submission, the subject imports are designed to be worn specifically for “deep water running, aqua jogging, water plyometrics and aqua therapy.” The subject imports therefore satisfy the first requirement of the subheading note. In addition, the import satisfies the second requirement of the note. All of the named exemplars are attachments that are designed to assist with certain aspects of a sporting activity. Cleats, for instance, assist in gripping the surface, preventing sliding and assisting in rapid changes of direction. Spikes maximize traction when running, throwing or jumping. Similarly, according to your submission, the gills are specifically designed to “allow the training shoe to add resistance to deep water running….The resistance created by the gills allows an athlete to activate more muscle groups, burn more calories, increase metabolic cost, and ultimately provide an intense cardiovascular workout.” These gills share the same essential characteristic as the exemplars enumerated in the subheading note to chapter 64, i.e., they are designed to assist with certain aspects of a sporting activity. By application of ejusdem generis, the subject Aquatic Training Shoes, with attached gills, are identifiable as “sports footwear” of heading 6404, HTSUS. This conclusion is supported by the manner in which the subject imports are marketed and sold. They are advertised as being “an innovation in footwear and resistance training,” and as being specifically designed to allow swimmers to “benefit from the increased metabolic work that can be accomplished by wearing the ATS in many ways.” HOLDING: The subject ATS are classifiable under subheading 6404.11.90, 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: Other: Valued over $12/pair.” The 2008 general, column one rate of duty is 20 percent ad valorem. Duty rates are provided for convenience only and are subject to change. The text of the most recent HTSUS and the accompanying duty rates are provided on the World Wide Web at www.usitc.gov. EFFECT ON OTHER RULINGS: NY L85922, dated August 2, 2005, is hereby affirmed. Sincerely, Myles B. Harmon, Director Commercial and Trade Facilitation Division