CBP Says 'Welt Footwear' Not Determined by Angle
The definition of "welt footwear" isn't determined by the angle at which the lip attaches to the insole, despite a 1993 Treasury Decision saying otherwise, said CBP's Tariff Classification and Marking Branch in two rulings. The internal advice and protest rulings go against the findings of the ports, which disagreed with the importer's classification of the merchandise as "of welt construction" based on the lip angle. CBP highlighted the rulings on its website, something it typically does for issues that come up frequently among importers. The internal advice ruling is (here). The protest ruling is (here).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The merchandise in question are hunting boots made by Red Wing Shoe Company and that include a rubber outer sole and an upper composed of leather and textile materials. The merchandise was originally entered through the Port of Chicago in 2010 under subheading 6403.90.30 for "Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of leather: Other footwear: Covering the ankle: Other: Welt footwear." The port sought sample information and later reclassified the item as 6403.91.60, "Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of leather: Other footwear: Covering the ankle: Other: Other: For men, youths and boys," because the lip wasn't attached at a right angle. The port relied on Treasury Decision 93-88, dated Nov. 17, 1993, which define the terms "welt" and "lip" using the angle, said CBP.
The port was mistaken in using Treasury Decision for its finding, said CBP. That decision "consists of advisory guidelines that should not be construed as binding CBP rulings," said CBP. The agency said Additional Note 1(a) to Chapter 64 is silent on the issue of the angle involved and therefore the reclassification was mistaken. The merchandise was correctly classified in this case under subheading 6403.91.30.