CLA-2-64:RR:NC:TA:347 D80286
Mr. John Kenney
Reebok International Ltd.
25 Littlefield St.
Avon, MA 02322
RE: The tariff classification of footwear from Taiwan
Dear Mr. Kenney:
In your letter dated July 13, 1998 you requested a tariff classification
ruling.
The submitted sample, identified as Style #2-45195, is a size 9 men's
low-top, you state, weightlifting/strength training shoe. The shoe is of cement
lasted construction, with a leather upper, a six eyelet lace closure and a 1
inch wide leather "hook and loop" strap at the instep. It has a heavy
non-flexing bottom which consists of, as you indicate, a compression molded non-
marking solid rubber outer sole, a 5mm thick EVA forefoot midsole, a solid wood
heel with a wooden shank wedge that extends under the arch of the foot, a thick
fiberboard footbed and a fully encircling leather welt strip.
The question to be considered regarding this weightlifting, strength
training shoe is whether or not to treat it, for tariff classification purposes,
as athletic footwear. Additional U.S. Note 2 to Chapter 64, Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTS), 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.
We note, and previous Customs Headquarters Rulings (HRL 953882, 9/24/93 ;
HRL 95524, 3/25/94) have held that all the exemplars of "athletic footwear"
listed in Additional U.S. Note 2, including training shoes(joggers) are
principally used in sports that require fast footwork or extensive running.
Therefore, since this weightlifting, strength training shoe is specifically
constructed with a heavy, non-flexing wood heeled high traction rubber bottom,
to primarily provide the wearer with stationary support and stability, it will
not be considered as being "athletic" footwear-like, such as a tennis shoe,
basketball shoe, gym shoe and a training(running) shoe.
The applicable subheading for this shoe, Style 2-45194, will be
6403.99.6075, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), which
provides for footwear, with uppers of leather and outer soles of rubber or
plastics or composition leather; which does not cover the ankle; which is not
"sports", nor "athletic" footwear; and which is worn by men, youths and boys.
The rate of duty will be 8.5% ad valorem.
In your letter you also state that if this very same style of
weightlifting/strength training shoe had an upper with an external surface area
that was textile instead of leather and the construction of the bottom/sole
remained the same as in the instant sample, it is your belief that a shoe so
constructed would be classified under 6404.19.9030, HTS. We agree that a shoe
like that would also, most likely, be considered not "athletic" footwear.
However, without an actual sample to examine, nor the price per pair being
confirmed, we are precluded from issuing a binding classification ruling for
this proposed hypothetical textile upper model.
We are returning your samples 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 212-466-5890.
Sincerely,
Robert B. Swierupski
Director,
National Commodity
Specialist Division