CIT Says Roche's Beta Carotene a Provitamin, Striking Down CBP's Classification
Beta carotene tablets imported by Roche Vitamins are correctly classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule as provitamins, said the Court of International Trade, ruling against CBP’s proposed classification as food preparations. The case had been subject to an earlier ruling in 2010, where the court found factual disputes still existed as to the use of the tablets, and ordered a trial. After trial, CIT found the tablets are predominantly used as a source of provitamin A.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Roche imported a shipment of “BetaTab 20%” in 2002. The product is a powder that consists of 20% by weight synthetic beta-carotene crystals. The individual particles contain a finely dispersed solution of beta carotene in a cornstarch-coated matrix of gelatin and sucrose. CBP classified the imported product under HTS subheading 2106.90.97 as other food preparations, not otherwise specified, dutiable at $0.28/kg + 8.5%. Roche protested, and upon denial filed suit at CIT. It argued the imported product was instead correctly classified under subheading 3204.19.35 as a synthetic organic coloring matter, dutiable at 3.1%, or under subheading 2936.10.00, as a provitamin, which enters duty free.
Provitamins are vitamin precursors that are converted to vitamins by an organism's metabolic processes. In the case of BetaTab, the body converts beta carotene to vitamin A.
CIT ruled in December 2010 that matters of fact remained unsettled, so it couldn’t decide in favor of either Roche or CBP (see 10122906). The principal use of the product was in dispute, it said. So it couldn’t determine whether the beta carotene tables should be classified under the HTS heading for colorants, which is a principal use provision. The case went to trial in 2012.
According to the court, CBP’s proposed classification under heading 2106 as a food preparation, not otherwise specified, would only apply if the product is in fact a food preparation for which classification is not available elsewhere in the HTS. For classification to be correct under Roche’s proposed heading 3204 as a coloring matter, the principal use of the BetaTab 20% would have to be as a colorant. And because a note to chapter 29 excludes coloring matter, a finding that the principal use of the BetaTab 20% is as a colorant would preclude classification as a provitamin. Another note to chapter 29 would prevent classification under its provisions if a stabilizer included in the product isn’t only for preservation or transport.
Based on evidence put forward at trial, the court found that the principal use of the merchandise is as a source of provitamin A, not as a colorant, so Roche’s proposed classification as a coloring matter under heading 3204 was out. But because the BetaTab could be classified elsewhere in the HTS, CBP’s proposed classification as a food preparation, not otherwise specified, was also incorrect -- the stabilizers added to the BetaTab didn’t disqualify it from chapter 29, so the product could be classified under heading 2936 as a provitamin.
Moving on to classification at the subheading level, CIT said the BetaTab could either be classified under subheading 2936.10.00 as “provitamins, unmixed,” or subheading 2936.90.00 as “other.” Because the word “unmixed” in heading 2936 only prohibits mixes of different provitamins, not mixes of provitamins and other ingredients, CIT found Roche’s Beta Max 20% was correctly classified under subheading 2936.10.00.
(Roche Vitamins, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 13-73, dated 06/14/13, public version 06/25/13, Judge Eaton)
(Attorneys: Erik Smithweiss of Grunfeld Desiderio for plaintiff Roche Vitamins, Inc.; Saul Davis for defendant U.S. government)