Trade Court Says US Trying to Re-Litigate Issues in Customs Suit on Fish Extracts
The Court of International Trade on Sept. 22 declined to reconsider its customs case finding importer BASF's fish oil ethyl ester concentrates are classified as "extract of fish" under Harmonized Tariff Schedule heading 1603. While the government said the court ignored that fish extracts must have similar characteristics to meat extracts and BASF's stipulation that its preparations aren't fatty acids, Judge Joseph Laroski said he explicitly considered both arguments.
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.
In May, Laroski found for the importer and held that the concentrates fit under heading 1603 and not under heading 2106 as "food preparations" (see 2506040076). The U.S. asked for reconsideration of the decision on the grounds that the court defined "fish extracts" too broadly (see 2507300056).
Specifically, the government argued that Laroski's interpretation of heading 1603 isn't in line with its plain meaning or the "intention of the drafters." The U.S. said the term "extract" should be read to mean "flavoring additives," since Explanatory Note 16.03 mentions that extracts "are used for making certain food preparations such as soups ... and sauces." The U.S. added that the court overlooked language from the note that "such extracts therefore have characteristics similar to those of meat extracts."
Laroski said he "considered and rejected" this argument when he ruled that "flavor components like taste are but one factor among many in determining whether a product is an 'extract.'" The judge said the U.S. "attempts to re-litigate an argument previously addressed."
Regarding its second point, the U.S. said the court's description of the concentrates is at odds with BASF's stipulation that its goods aren't fatty acids. Laroski said the government failed to identify a "fundamental or significant flaw" in the court's decision, holding that his discussion of BASF's goods was "well-supported by the statement of undisputed material facts." The judge added that he "considered and rejected the Government’s argument regarding the significance of the ethanol reaction that yielded the ethyl esters in BASF’s product."
(BASF Corporation v. United States, Slip Op. 25-123, CIT Consol. # 13-00318, dated 09/22/25; Judge: Joseph Laroski; Attorneys: Frederic Van Arnam of Barnes Richardson for plaintiff BASF Corporation; Luke Mathers for defendant U.S. government)