CBP Proposed Test on Footwear With Textile Soles Needs More Detail, Says FDRA
While accepting the general outline of CBP’s proposed test method to determine classification for footwear with textile soles, the Footwear Distributors and Retailers of America (FDRA) said the agency needs to include more detail in its final version. The group submitted its comments in response to CBP’s proposed test method for administering Harmonized Tariff Schedule Chapter 64, additional note 5. “The test method and the manner in which the test results will be used must be described in a great deal more detail in order to ensure uniformity and consistent results and to avoid unnecessary testing,” FDRA said.
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.
CBP Proposed Long-Awaited Test Method in March
Additional Note 5, added to Chapter 64 in December 2011, says that “for the purposes of determining the constituent material of the outer sole … no account shall be taken of textile materials which do not possess the characteristics usually required for normal use of an outer sole, including durability and strength.” After some industry groups prodded CBP to issue guidance on the provision (see 12110115), CBP released its proposed test method in the March 27 Customs Bulletin (see 13032615).
CBP's proposal would rely on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) test method for abrasion resistance on outer soles, known as ISO 20871. CBP is proposing that in order to demonstrate that "the terms of Note 5 have been met, either as part of a request for prospective ruling under the CBP regulations (19 CFR Part 177) or in response to a request for information via CBP Form 28, importers should present independent laboratory reports applying ISO 20871," said CBP. ISO 20871 tests the performance of footwear outer soles by taking three samples from the outer sole and subjecting their surface areas to the specified abrasion machine. CBP is proposing to decide on the classification characteristics based on whether the textile material subjected to ISO 20871 is still present on the samples after testing.
CBP Needs to Flesh Out Details, Says FDRA
According to the FDRA, a formal testing method isn’t necessary: “market conditions are adequate to determine which textile outer sole materials are acceptable.” Nonetheless, while deeming CBP’s general test approach acceptable, FDRA expressed concern with the level of detail provided in the agency proposal.
More specific description. The test specified in the proposal says three samples should be taken from the sole, but doesn’t say how those samples should be evaluated. FDRA said CBP should specify that:
- the samples should be taken from areas where textile is present on the surface;
- only one of the three samples should need to have textile remaining after the abrasion process to satisfy additional note 5; and
- outer soles entirely of textile materials shouldn’t be subject to the test.
Headings 6402 and 6404. CBP should make it clear that the abrasion test is not required for footwear classified in subheadings within 6402 and 6404 that do not refer to textile materials not taken into account t under additional note 5, FDRA said.
Indoor footwear. According to FDRA, The CBP notice outlining the test method equated “indoor footwear” with “house slippers.” The meaning of those terms is important, because the proposal is clear that textile materials used in the outer sole of indoor footwear are acceptable under additional note 5, FDRA said. But CBP went against its usual interpretation of those terms in the proposal, FDRA said -- by equating the two terms, CBP is narrowing the universe of indoor footwear acceptable under additional note 5. “Numerous” rulings have treated footwear as indoor footwear in cases where it did not meet the narrow definition of house slippers at statistical note 1(d) to Chapter 64, FDRA said. “That approach should not be changed.”
Email ITTNews@warren-news.com for a copy of FDRA’s comments.