CAFC Rules on Gasoline Detergent Additive
In BASF Corporation v. U.S., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit re-affirmed the decision by the Court of International Trade that an imported product identified as polyisobutylene-amine diluted in a saturated hydrocarbon solvent, with the trade name PURADD FD-100, is properly classified by its use, in HTS 3811.90.00.
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.
The product at issue contains an active ingredient polyisobutylene amine (PIBA), which is mixed with gasoline and acts as a detergent useful in removing and preventing buildup of harmful deposits in gasoline engines.
The CIT had ruled that while PURADD FD-100 was identified in both headings 3811 and 3902, it was more specifically provided for under heading 3811 (which includes any product used as an additive for gasoline), a use provision.
On appeal, BASF argued that PURADD FD-100 is not a gasoline additive when imported, because it was not suitable to be added into gasoline by itself. The CAFC stated that when PURADD FD-100 is introduced into the gasoline, even though it is mixed with other ingredients, it is essentially in the same condition as when it is imported. Thus, it should be considered an additive for gasoline.
The CAFC stated that heading 3902, which reads, "Polymers or propylene or other olefins, in primary forms" is an eo nominee provision or one which describes the merchandise by its name and not its use. Heading 3811 is defined as a use provision covering prepared additives and reads as follows: "Antiknock preparations, oxidation inhibitors, gum inhibitors, etcfor mineral oils (including gasoline)." The CAFC restated the general rule that when a product is designated by both a use provision and an eo nominee provision, the general rule is to classify the product based on the use provision.
The CAFC examined the specifics of the product in question and found no reason to deviate from the general rule. Accordingly, the CAFC ruled that PURADD FD-100 should be classified under heading 3811 and affirmed the judgment of the CIT to classify this product under HTS 3811.90.00.
(See ITT's Online Archives or 05/17/06 news, 06051725, for BP summary of CIT decision.)
CAFC decision 06-1387 (dated 08/10/07) available at: http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-1387.pdf