CLA-2 RR:CR:TE 960427 GGD
Port Director
U.S. Customs Service
Post Office Box 3130
Laredo, Texas 78044
RE: Decision on Application for Further Review of Protest No. 2304-97-100068, filed
February 27, 1997, concerning the classification of men’s soccer shoes
Dear Sir:
This is a decision on a protest timely filed on February 27, 1997, against your decision in the classification and liquidation of sports footwear made in Mexico and entered in September 1996.
FACTS:
You classified the merchandise under subheading 6402.19.7030, HTSUSA, the provision for “Other Footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics: Sports footwear: Other: Other: Valued over $6.50 but not over $12/pair, For men, youths and boys,” with an applicable (1996) duty rate of 36 cents per pair plus 8 percent ad valorem.
-2-
The protestant claims that the goods should be classified in subheading 6403.19.4090, HTSUSA, the provision for “Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of leather: Sports footwear: Other: For men, youths and boys: Other: Other, Other,” with an applicable duty rate of Free.
The footwear at issue is identified by style name “Roma” and by style number 513. Customs laboratory report number 5-1997-40140, dated April 10, 1997, concerns the analysis of a sample described as a man’s Roma brand soccer shoe, size 9, color: black/white. The report states that the shoe was found to have the following percentage composition of the external surface area of the upper:
Plastic --- 71.6 percent
Textile --- 2.6 percent
Leather -- 25.8 percent
The report further states that the sole assembly, including molded-on cleats, is composed of rubber.
On the Interim Footwear Invoice, in response to question C. 19 (“Is the external surface area of the upper more than 50% leather…?”), choice “NO” is marked. In response to question C. 20 (“Which of the following characteristics does the footwear possess?”), blank “b.” is marked to assert that style “Roma - #513” has “uppers of vegetable fibers (cotton, flax, etc.).” In response to question E. 22 (“Which of the following characteristics does the footwear possess?”), blank “a.” is marked to respond that the footwear has “uppers of leather or composition leather.”
ISSUE:
Whether the test results obtained by the Customs laboratory warrant classification of the merchandise in a provision for other footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics.
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
-3-
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 Explanatory Notes (EN) to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, which represent the official interpretation of the tariff at the international level, facilitate classification under the HTSUS by offering guidance in understanding the scope of the headings and GRI.
Among other merchandise, chapter 64, HTSUSA, covers footwear. Heading 6402, HTSUSA, covers “Other footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics.” Heading 6403, HTSUSA, covers “Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of leather.” With respect to whether the footwear at issue is considered to possess uppers of plastics or uppers of leather, we point out that Note 4(b) to Chapter 64, HTSUSA, states:
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 this case, subheading 6403.19.4090, HTSUSA, could only be found applicable if there were conflicting evidence as to the constituent material which comprises the greatest external surface area of the upper. There is none. Responses contained on the Interim Footwear Invoice indicate confusion either as to the shoe’s composition or the questions posed. Although it is maintained in the protest that the shoe is made of leather, the record contains no evidence that leather comprises the greatest external surface area of the upper. In light of the above, we find that the results of the Customs laboratory testing (which state that plastics comprise 71.6 percent of the external surface area of the upper) support classification of the subject soccer shoe in subheading 6402.19.7030, HTSUSA, the classification assessed on the protested entry.
HOLDING:
The soccer shoe identified by style name “Roma” and style number 513 is classified in subheading 6402.19.7030, HTSUSA, the provision for “Other Footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics: Sports footwear: Other: Other: Valued
-4-
over $6.50 [6 dollars fifty cents] but not over $12/pair [12 dollars per pair], For men, youths and boys.” The special column one duty rate (NAFTA preference rate) is 36 cents per pair plus 8 percent ad valorem.
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, you are to mail this decision, together with the Customs 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 of the decision.
No later than 60 days from the date of this letter, the Office of Regulations and Rulings will make the decision available to Customs personnel, and to the public on the Customs Home Page on the World Wide Web at www.customs.gov, by means of the Freedom of Information Act, and by other methods of public distribution.
Sincerely,
John Durant, Director
Commercial Rulings Division