CLA-2 CO:R:C:M 950418 NLP
Ms. Brenda D. Favorat
The Timberland Company
11 Merrill Industrial Drive
P.O. Box 5050
Hampton, NH 03842-5050
RE: Footwear; formed uppers; sock liner; HRL 088035; subheading
6404.10.35; U.S Note 4(a) to Chapter 64
Dear Ms. Favorat:
This is in response to your letter of September 6, 1991,
concerning the classification of a footwear upper under the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). A
sample was submitted for our examination.
FACTS:
The subject footwear upper is made of nylon cordura. There
is leather trim on the upper's collar and the tip of the tongue.
The upper is not front or back part lasted. The subject textile
footwear upper will be imported with a textile sock liner
stitched onto the bottom. The sock liner will cover the interior
bottom of the finished shoe.
The upper will be imported into the United States from the
manufacturer in the Dominican Republic. The upper will then be
lasted and bottomed in the United States to make it a complete
shoe.
ISSUE:
What is the proper classification of the subject footwear
upper.
LAW AND ANALYSIS:
Classification of merchandise under the HTSUS is in
accordance with the General Rules of Interpretation (GRI's),
taken in order. GRI 1 provides that classification is determined
according to the terms of the headings and any relative chapter
or section notes.
U.S Note 4 to Chapter 64, HTSUS, provides in pertinent part
the following:
... [p]rovisions for 'formed uppers' covers uppers,
with closed bottoms, which have been shaped by
lasting, molding or otherwise but not simply by closing
at the bottom."
In Headquarters Ruling Letter(HRL) 088035, dated February 1,
1991, this office stated that "[w]e consider the leather upper
and the sock lining to be a formed upper for the following
reasons:
1. the upper and sock lining are constructively assembled
pursuant to GRI 2(a), HTSUS;
2. the upper is both front part and back part lasted; and
3. since the upper and sock lining are constructively
assembled, we will treat the bottom as being closed."
Pursuant to guideline 3 in HRL 088035, the bottom of the
subject upper is considered closed. Therefore, according to U.S.
Note 4(a) to chapter 64, the first part of the formed upper test
has been met.
The next issue to be decided is whether the upper has been
shaped by "lasting, molding or otherwise but not simply by
closing at the bottom." The subject upper has not been front
part or back part lasted. However, it is our position that
lasting is not the only method by which an upper may be shaped
and that the shaping in the subject upper could not have resulted
from "simply closing at the bottom". The instant upper has
stiffeners that have been molded or pressured into curves at the
toe and heel, giving the upper shape. When we removed the
stitching in the toe and heel, the upper maintained its shoe
shape. Therefore, this shaping could not have resulted from
closing the upper at the bottom with a stitched on sock liner.
The upper has been shaped by molding and stiffening. Thus, the
instant upper is a formed upper as it has closed bottom and it is
shaped by more than simply closing it at the bottom.
HOLDING:
The subject footwear upper is classified in subheading
6406.10.35, HTSUS, which provides for uppers and parts thereof,
other than stiffiners, formed uppers of textile materials, other,
valued over $6.50 but not over $12/pair. The rate of duty is 90
cents/ pr + 20 percent ad valorem. If the shoes are valued over
$12 per pair, the HTSUS classification is in subheading
6404.10.40, HTSUS, and the duty rate would be 20 percent ad
valorem.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division