Importer Opposes US Motion for Reconsideration in Fish Oil Case
Importer BASF Corp. pushed back July 2 against a U.S. attempt to seek reconsideration of Court of International Trade Judge Gary Katzmann’s decision that BASF’s fish oil should be classified as fish extracts, not as food preparations (see 2506040076 and 2505020018) (BASF Corp. v. United States, CIT Consol. # 13-00318).
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 trade court held in May that BASF’s products, "semi-synthetic fish oil ethyl ester concentrates rich in omega-3 fatty acids,” maintain the essence of fish and should have been classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603. The U.S. argued in a motion for reconsideration that CIT had created an overly broad definition for the term “fish extracts” and overlooked an explanatory note.
But the arguments that the government said CIT had overlooked weren’t new, BASF claimed -- they’d already been raised prior to Katzmann’s ruling. The U.S. was just trying to relitigate its earlier position, the importer argued.
First, it said, the U.S. claim that CIT had failed to consider explanatory note 16.03 in its classification analysis wasn’t true. The government raised that specific note “on three separate occasions” during briefing and oral arguments to make the claim that fish extracts should be treated like meat extracts, it said. But when the trade court was conducting its analysis, it considered the claim and rejected it, BASF said.
Much of the government’s argument had been reliant on “the ENs and other secondary sources” to draw a more narrow definition of the word “extract,” it said. But Katzmann rejected this narrow definition, properly, based on case law, it claimed.
BASF also noted that explanatory notes aren’t binding, so failing to follow them doesn’t result in “factual or legal error.”
The U.S. also was seeking to relitigate its claim that the trade court didn’t classify the fish oil in its imported condition, as it had already twice raised the issue prior to CIT’s ruling, BASF said. The only difference between those prior arguments and the one it raised in its most recent motion for reconsideration were the sources it cited, the importer claimed. Specifically, the U.S. had previously cited Rollerblade, Inc. v. U.S., but it was now raising Mitsubishi Power Americas, Inc. v. U.S., decided April 29, 2025, and Kachurin Drug Co. v. U.S., published in 1950 by the U.S. Customs Court.
“Neither of these cases establish a fundamental or significant change in law that would require this Court to reconsider its decision,” it said.
Katzmann’s decision followed two prior cases, Jedwards International, Inc. v. U.S. and Marcor Development Corp, v. U.S., BASF said. Both determined that an “extract” is something that “maintain[s] the essence of the main source,” and Katmann was correct to apply those to the case at bar, it said.