The tariff classification of a pair of insoles from Taiwan. Dear Mr. Rutt: In your letter dated October 12, 1990, received in thisoffice October 17, 1990, on behalf of your client, W.A.B. BlythCorporation, you requested a tariff classification ruling. The submitted samples are a pair of insoles constructed of atextile material layer, which we assume was cut from a sheet oflaminated fabric and then shaped in a heat process. Because thetextile fabric of the insoles is present for more than merelyreinforcement purposes, the insoles are considered to be oftextile material. We note that you have stated that the insoles, by weight,are 98% polyurethane and 2% nylon fabric. The applicable subheading for the insole
The full text of this ruling lives on CBP’s site. Read 857390 on rulings.cbp.gov › We store full decision text for the regime-relevant slice (rulings citing an IEEPA / 301 / 232 overlay); this one isn’t in it.
Source: CBP Customs Rulings Online Search System (CROSS, rulings.cbp.gov). A ruling is CBP’s binding answer to an importer’s classification question — precedent for similar goods, not a determination about yours; a licensed customs broker confirms the correct classification.
NY 857390 — The tariff classification of a pair of insoles from Taiwan. Dear Mr. Rutt: In your letter dated October 12, 1990, received in thisoffice October 17, 1990, on behalf of your client, W.A.B. BlythCorporation, you requested a tariff classification ruling. The submitted samples are a pair of insoles constructed of atextile material layer, which we assume was cut from a sheet oflaminated fabric and then shaped in a heat process. Because thetextile fabric of the insoles is present for more than merelyreinforcement purposes, the insoles are considered to be oftextile material. We note that you have stated that the insoles, by weight,are 98% polyurethane and 2% nylon fabric. The applicable subheading for the insole