CIT Affirms Classification of Fish Oil

Sep. 24, 2025
By: Pietro N. Bianchi

Recently, the Customs news cycle has been focused on sexy issues like International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) duties and Section 232 National Security duties. However, it is often helpful to get back to the basics. Trade professionals always need to contemplate what a thing is (classification), what it is worth (valuation), and where it comes from (origin). The answers to these questions often have significant consequences, including application of sexy (and unsexy) duties.

In BASF Corp. v. United States, Ct. Int'l Trade Slip Op. 2025-54 (May 2, 2025), BRC’s Frederic D. Van Arnam, Jr. and Ashley J. Bodden successfully defended the correct classification of fish oil ethyl ester concentrates being under Heading 1603, “Extracts and juices of meat, fish or crustaceans, molluscs or other aquatic invertebrates,” instead of Customs’ proposed Heading: 3824, “Prepared binders for foundry molds or cores; chemical products and preparations of the chemical or allied industries (including those consisting of mixtures of natural products), not elsewhere specified or included.” This decision, recently secured when the Court of International Trade denied the Customs’ motion to reconsider, reduced MFN tariff liabilities from 6.4 percent to a duty-free rate.

Central the case was whether the product was an “extract” and what is the essence of a fish – if only Aristotle had lived 2000 and some years later, he’d have been a brilliant Customs lawyer. The CIT ultimately determined the product was an extract of fish because it consisted almost entirely of substance found in the fish source, remained in the same form, offered the same health benefits as the fish source, and bore resemblance to the fish source in color, taste, and odor. All of this was then reaffirmed. If you have questions about classification or trade remedies do not hesitate to contact an attorney at Barnes Richardson, & Colburn LLP.