Importer Fights CBP Analysis of Its Ballet Shoes for Preferred Classification

Importer Target General Merchandise filed a complaint at the Court of International Trade, arguing against CBP's analysis of the composition of its glitter/fabric ballet shoes. Target says the shoes should have been classified under a lower duty tariff provision for footwear with textile bottoms.

Target entered the shoes under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 6402.99.41, as "oxford height footwear of the slip on type, without a foxing or foxing like band, with uppers and outer soles of rubber/plastic, having outer soles with textile having the greatest surface area in contact with the ground during use of the footwear." This classification is dutiable at 12.5%. But CBP classified the shoes under subheading 6402.99.49, as "as oxford height footwear of the slip on type, without a foxing or foxing like band, with uppers and outer soles of rubber/plastic," dutiable at 37.5%.

The importer said CBP was wrong in rejecting the outer sole material as having textile as the greatest surface area in contact with the ground during use of the shoe. To identify the surface area, CBP conducts what is referred to as a CBPL method 64-01 footwear analysis. CBP conducted this test to measure the materials of the outer sole that have the greatest surface area in contact with the ground during the shoes' use, finding that the external surface area is 51.5% plastic and 48.5% textile.

Target took issue with this, saying CBP "apparently did not reduce the total measured plastic area to account for the areas of 1/16th inch deep grooves cut into certain plastic areas of the outer sole," the complaint said. In protesting CBP's decision, Target attached results of independent laboratory tests showing that the material of the other sole in contact with the ground during use is textile.

In explaining its result, CBP said that "the first groove is an existing line in the outer sole and in the general area where one would determine that contact with the ground would occur. CBP measured that first groove as well as the additional grooves that separate the areas of textile from the areas of rubber/plastic and determined them to be approximately one sixteenth of an inch deep. As such they were included in the total area measurements and in the rubber/plastic measurements as part of what is in contact with the ground.”

This explanation does not say that the CBP test results were based on "planimeter measurements" under the CBPL method 64-01 as required, the complaint said. Therefore, "CBP had no scientific, factual, or legal basis to deny plaintiff’s protest," the complaint said.