In the EU internal market, products can be freely circulated among member states, but not between EU and third countries. Importing products from outside the EU requires the importer to pay common duties. The common tariff system for all EU members is the same, but different products have different tax rates, depending on what products and products come from. In order to distinguish similar products, the classification of all products (contained in the name of the merger) has taken effect.

With the publication of Regulation 33/2010 of the EU Official Gazette on January 15, 2010, new developments have been made in footwear classification. The Regulation amends Annex I of the Regulation No. 2658/87 of the Council on Tariff Tariffs and Common Tariffs. It seeks to clarify the terminology used by the headings for different categories of footwear to facilitate the classification of footwear. Therefore, the EU will be more likely to assess tax rates for each type of footwear.

Regulation No. 33/2010 was adopted on the basis of the European Court’s ruling on the interpretation of footwear tariff terms. On May 22, 2008, the court interpreted the meaning of the tax items in the consolidated list, namely, number 6403 (shoes made of leather on the uppers) and 6404 (shoes made from textile materials for uppers). The need for interpretation arises from the litigation between the Danish tax department and the footwear trading company EccoSko A/S due to the tariff classification of certain sandals. Footwear traders claim that the sandals should be classified as leather footwear, but the tax department has mistakenly categorized footwear categories that use textile raw materials to make uppers. How to classify has a great influence on the number of tariffs. According to the tax classification, the tariff will increase by 9%.

As a result of this legal dispute, the European Court of Justice must interpret what is meant by a shoe upper before it can determine the classification of the sandal. The court emphasized that the decisive criteria for judging how products should be classified in the customs category are the objective characteristics and characteristics of the products.

Based on this criterion, the European Court decided to conduct a "walking test" to assess whether a certain material is "shoe upper." According to this test, when a material supports the wearer's foot and allows the wearer to walk with the shoe, the material has the characteristics of the upper. The court held that it cannot be simply defined as a shoe upper because the shape of a material is the same as the upper, such as a lining.

In line with the European Court’s ruling, the new Regulation No. 33/2010 adopts this “walking test” to assess whether a material is a shoe upper or not. The new clause has been added to the interpretation of Cap 64 of the consolidation heading (Annex to Regulation 2658/87).

Regulation No. 33/2010 refers to footwear that requires a securing device to function. For example, a shoe that requires a shoelace to function will have to be laced for a walk test. Otherwise, in this type of case, no material will pass the walk test and will not be assessed as a shoe upper.

The introduction of a walking test to interpret the footwear category will clarify the classification of laws and footwear. Regulation 33/2010 applies only to footwear and will take effect 20 days after the date of publication (ie 15 January 2010).

The Council of Ministers of the European Union, through Council Regulation No. 1294/2009, imposes anti-dumping duties on certain types of footwear from the Mainland of China and Vietnam and decides to extend the anti-dumping measures against leather footwear in the two places for 15 months until March 11, 2011. In view of the dissatisfaction in mainland China, WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy stated on January 8, 2010 that if the mainland of China considers that the EU misquoted the WTO regulations, it may file a complaint with the WTO.

If China uses the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO, the latter will have the opportunity to judge whether the EU’s decision to extend the above anti-dumping measures is illegal. Once this happens, the WTO ruling will have a great impact on the trade relations between the two major trading systems.