Background
Zoetis Services LLC imported feed-grade chlortetracycline concentrate manufactured in China. The product contained 23.8% to 24.7% chlortetracycline, a broad-spectrum tetracycline antibiotic, along with substances remaining from fermentation and calcium carbonate added for stability. After importation, Zoetis used the concentrate to manufacture medicated articles that were ultimately incorporated into livestock feed to treat, prevent, and control disease.
Customs classified the merchandise as a preparation used in animal feeding under HTSUS heading 2309 and imposed 25% Section 301 duties. After Customs denied Zoetis’s protests, Zoetis sought classification as an antibiotic under subheading 2941.30.00 or, alternatively, as a medicament under subheading 3003.20.00. With no material facts disputed, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Zoetis’s motion, denied the government’s cross-motion, and held that the concentrate was properly classified under HTSUS subheading 2941.30.00, covering tetracycline antibiotics and their derivatives. It concluded that heading 2309 did not apply because the imported product lacked a carrier, had a substantially higher antibiotic concentration than the range generally identified for animal-feed premixes, provided no significant nutrition, and qualified as a preparation for veterinary use excluded by the explanatory note to heading 2309.
The court further held that the product’s non-antibiotic substances were permissible impurities under Chapter 29 because they resulted directly from fermentation as starting materials, reagents, or byproducts. Calcium carbonate was also a permissible stabilizer necessary to preserve the product. Because the merchandise was classifiable in Chapter 29, Chapter 30 required it to be treated as an unmixed product, foreclosing Zoetis’s alternative proposed classification under heading 3003.
Key Takeaways
- Tariff classification turns on merchandise’s condition when imported, not on products manufactured from it after importation.
- Fermentation remnants and a necessary stabilizer did not prevent the concentrate from being classified as an antibiotic under Chapter 29.
- The product was not an animal-feed preparation because it lacked a carrier, was medicinal rather than nutritional, and fell within the veterinary-use exclusion.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes concentrated veterinary antibiotics from animal-feed preparations even when the antibiotics are ultimately incorporated into medicated feed. It also explains when fermentation residues and stabilizing agents may remain permissible under Chapter 29 rather than transforming a chemically defined product into a preparation classified elsewhere.