BASF Corp. v. United States
33 I.T.R.D. (BNA) 2195
Ct. Intl. Trade2011Background
- BASF imported Betavit 10% and 20% beta-carotene products between Aug and Sept 2000; Customs classified them under HTSUS 2106.90.99 and assessed 6.4% ad valorem duties.
- BASF protested, seeking classification under HTSUS 3204.19.35 (beta-carotene coloring matter) or under 2936 (provitamin) or 3003 (medicaments).
- This litigation followed similar disputes, including Roche Vitamins (CIT 2010) and BASF I/II line of beta-carotene classifications.
- The court applies a principal use analysis to determine if the merchandise falls under 3204.19.35, a use-based provision, or under alternative headings.
- The parties dispute whether Betavits are commercially fungible with coloring matter or with dietary supplement ingredients/provitamins, affecting the principal-use determination.
- The court denied BASF’s motion for summary judgment due to genuine issues of material fact about Betavits’ principal use and potential alternative classifications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Betavits are classified under 3204.19.35 as coloring matter. | BASF argues Betavits’ principal use is as a beta-carotene colorant. | United States contends Betavits are designed and used as provitamin/dietary supplement ingredients, not colorants. | Genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on 3204.19.35 classification. |
| Whether alternative headings (2936 provitamin or 3003 medicaments) apply to Betavits. | Betavits could be provitamin under 2936 or medicament under 3003. | Betavits are not used for therapeutic/prophylactic purposes, so 2936 or 3003 should not apply. | Material facts remain unresolved; summary judgment on alternative headings denied. |
| Whether the court should allow discovery to resolve principal-use issues under ARI 1(a). | Discovery may clarify whether Betavits belong to the colorant class or another class. | Discovery is appropriate to address remaining ARI 1(a) factors and principal use. | The court reopened discovery for limited ARI 1(a) classification purposes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roche Vitamins v. United States, 750 F. Supp. 2d 1367 (CIT 2010) (reaffirmed that material facts affect principal-use classification)
- BASF Corp. v. United States (BASF I), 29 CIT 681 (2005) (beta-carotene product classified under 3204.19.35 emphasizing purpose)
- BASF Corp. v. United States (BASF II), 482 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (Federal Circuit affirmed colorant classification concept and related issues)
- E.M. Chems. v. United States, 923 F. Supp. 202 (D.N.J. 1996) (principal-use evaluation for coloring matter under 3204)
- Carborundum Co. v. United States, 536 F.2d 373 (C.C.P.A. 1976) (factors for evaluating principal use in classification)
- Primal Lite, Inc. v. United States, 182 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (sets out ARI factors for principal-use analysis)