CIT Affirms CBP's HTS Classification; Boots w/o Laces are "Slip-On Footwear"
In a challenge of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) classification of “boots [that] can be pulled on with the hands, and that…extend above the ankle” as "slip-on footwear," brought by plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corp., the Court of International Trade ruled in favor of CBP. CBP originally classified the entries under HTS No. 6404.19.35, which includes “[non-sports] footwear [with outer soles of rubber or plastics] of the slip-on type, that is held to the foot without the use of laces or buckles or other fasteners,” dutiable at 37.5% ad valorem.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Plaintiffs argued that the boots were instead correctly classified as HTS No. 6404.19.90, the classification for "other" non-sports footwear with outer soles of rubber or plastics, dutiable at 9% ad valorem, because the word slip-on explicitly refers to shoes that do not extend above the ankles, and not boots.
(The product at issue, which was imported by Deckers, is a boot with a rubber sole and knit upper that had no laces, buckles or other fasteners to hold it to the foot. To don the boots, a wearer must grip the top of the woven textile upper with two hands, insert the foot into the opening, and pull the boot up forcefully while adjusting the foot until the foot and calf are securely ensconced in the boot with the heel properly set.)
CIT Finds that 6404.19.35 "Slip-On Footwear" is Correct HTS Classification for "Pulled-On Boots"
CIT noted that when choosing between a specific subheading and a basket provision, the basket provision may only be employed if the merchandise is not covered by the more specific subheading's terms. Thus, according to CIT, the boots could only be classified under the "other" subheading if the subheading for "footwear of the slip-on type..." was inapplicable. CIT disagreed with plaintiff's narrow construction of the "footwear of a slip-on type" as only referring to shoes and not boots, saying that the phrase “that is” in 6404.19.35 corresponds to the Latin id est (i.e.), so that the tariff subheading at issue indicates that footwear of the slip-on type is any footwear (including boots and shoes) that is held to the foot without the use of laces or buckles or other fasteners.
Dictionary Definitions, CBP Document Indicate that "Slip-Ons" Include Boots
In support of its ruling, CIT also said that, in several dictionary definitions that it consulted, the lack of laces or fasteners is the essential characteristic uniting each dictionary definition for "slip-on." According to CIT, while the definitions vary as to the type of items that may be slip-ons - garments, girdles, gloves, and shoes - the absence of fasteners is determinative in each instance in whether an item is or is not a slip-on.
Furthermore, said CIT, it found persuasive CBP's definition of "slip-on" in its "Footwear Definitions", a document comprised of originally internal footwear definitions used by CBP import specialists in classifying footwear, which CBP released to the public in 1993 with the goal of helping importers to better understand classification requirements. In "Footwear Definitions," CBP explicitly included "a boot which must be pulled on" as a "slip-on," and CIT said that it saw no reason to upset CBP's considered and long-held definition.
Therefore, CIT affirmed CBP's classification of the boots in the specific HTS subheading 6404.19.35.
(CIT Slip Op. 12-53, dated 04/24/12, Judge Carman)