CIT Clarifies Note on Footwear Uppers Material in Tariff Classification Case on Motocross Boots
The Court of International Trade on Aug. 2 overturned CBP’s classification of Alpinestars’ motocross boots in a tariff classification case that largely revolved around whether a mixed-material footwear upper should be considered plastic or leather. The agency’s application of U.S. Note 4(a) to Chapter 64 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule was overly restrictive, the court ruled. The plastic parts that formed part of the surface area of the uppers should have been disregarded as accessories or reinforcements pursuant to Note 4(a), leaving the leather underneath to be used as the basis for classification, CIT 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.
Uppers Part Leather, Part Rubber/Plastics
Alpinestars’ Tech 8 boot was designed for motocross, which is a motorcycle race on a closed dirt course of about two miles that incorporates jumps, ruts, and hairpin turns. The boot consists of an interior bootie and an external shell that are designed to protect the motocross rider’s foot and lower leg. The outer sole is made from rubber that also has a hard replaceable sole that covers the middle of the bottom of the boot. The boot’s upper has both plastic and leather components. Alpinestars and CBP agreed that at least 43.5 percent of the upper is rubber or plastic and 34.3 percent is leather. Most of the remaining 22 percent of the upper’s surface area are components like supports and buckle holders that are made of rubber or plastic but stitched on top of leather.
When the Tech 8 boots were imported and liquidated in 2008, CBP classified them in HTS subheading 6402.91.90 (“Other footwear with outer soles and uppers of rubber or plastics: Other footwear: Covering the ankle: Other: Other: Other: Valued over $12/pair”), dutiable at 20%. Alpinestars argued that they should be instead be classified under a sports equipment tariff provision in heading 9506, dutiable at 4%. Alternatively, Alpinestars said the Tech 8 should have been classified under heading 6403 (“Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather, or composition leather”), dutiable at either 8.5% or 9% depending on whether the boots were sports footwear.
Boots Not Sports Equipment
CIT made short work of Alpinestars’ claim that the boots should be classified as sports equipment. In its Bauer and LeMans rulings, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the term sports equipment in the HTS is defined as “non-apparel-like merchandise that is necessary, useful, or appropriate for a sport, and if the merchandise is worn by a user, those articles are almost exclusively protective in nature and would complement, or be worn in addition to, apparel worn for a particular sport.” The Tech 8, on the other hand, is just a boot, CIT said. “It is simply footwear and not an item used to enhance apparel,” and so is not sports equipment,” said the court.
Classification Turns on Interpretation of Chapter 64, Note 4(a)
Turning to the dispute over whether the boots should be classified as having uppers of plastics or rubber under heading 6402, or uppers of leather under heading 6403, CIT said the answer hinged on interpretation of U.S. Note 4(b) to Chapter 64. That note says “the material of the upper shall be taken to be the constituent material having the greatest external surface area, no account being taken of accessories or reinforcements such as ankle patches, edging, ornamentation, buckles, tabs, eyelet stays or similar attachments.”
Alpinestars proffered meanings for “accessories” and “reinforcements” that were similar to dictionary definitions, and said various rubber and plastic components were accessories. That would mean they would be disregarded, making leather the predominant material of the upper. But the government inferred from the examples given in the note that “accessories and reinforcements” mean either decorative items or aids to fastening and closure systems. The Tech 8 boot components did not fall within either of those categories, so the main material of the upper was rubber or plastic, it said.
Court Defines ‘Accessory,’ ‘Reinforcement’
The court put forth its own definitions: within chapter 64, “an ‘accessory’ refers to a nonessential article that adds to the aesthetics, convenience, or effectiveness of the footwear, with a ‘reinforcement’ referring to a nonessential article that strengthens, provides additional assistance, or support to the footwear.” Under these definitions, several rubber and plastic components of the boots qualified as accessories, and should be disregarded, CIT said. The leather underneath the components added enough surface area to bring the total leather surface area above 50%, so the boots should be classified in heading 6403 as having uppers of leather, the court said.
Finally, the court reviewed the relevant subheadings and found the boots are not “sports footwear.” Subheading Note 1(a) to Chapter 64(a) says sports footwear have “spikes, sprigs, cleats, stops, clips, bars, or the like.” The hard replaceable sole on the outer sole of the Tech 8 does help the rider keep traction on the motorcycle’s footpeg, but it isn’t the same as the examples given in the subheading note, CIT said. So Alpinestars’ Tech 8 boots are correctly classified under HTS subheading 6403.91.60 (“Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of leather: Other footwear: Covering the ankle: For men, youths, and boys”), dutiable at 8.5%.
(Alpinestars S.p.A. v. U.S., Slip Op. 13-98, dated 08/02/13, Judge Gordon)
(Attorneys: Erik Smithweiss of Grunfeld Desiderio for plaintiff Alipinestars S.p.A.; Jason Kenner for defendant U.S. government)