The U.S. Court of International Trade has ruled that feed-grade chlortetracycline concentrate imported from China is properly classified as an antibiotic under HTSUS 2941.30.00 rather than as a preparation used in animal feeding under heading 2309.
The September 2 decision in Zoetis Services LLC v. United States (CIT Court No. 22-00056), issued by Judge Joseph Laroski, provides guidance for pharmaceutical, animal-health and chemical importers whose products contain residual substances from manufacturing.
The Classification Dispute
CBP had liquidated the merchandise, a feed-grade chlortetracycline concentrate powder manufactured through fermentation, under subheading 2309, treating it as a preparation used for animal feeding. Zoetis argued the product was properly classifiable as a tetracycline antibiotic under heading 2941. The court agreed with Zoetis, holding that the merchandise met the terms of subheading 2941.30.00.
Why the Decision Matters Beyond One Product
The case does not mean every feed-grade pharmaceutical ingredient belongs in Chapter 29. Classification remains fact-specific and depends on a product’s composition, manufacturing process, function, and the relevant section and chapter notes, not simply on how the product will ultimately be used. Importers with similar products should review the full slip opinion to see how the court applied those notes to Zoetis’s specific facts before assuming the outcome transfers directly to their own goods.
Classification Can Affect More Than the Base Duty
Both subheadings at issue here are generally free of the standard Column 1 duty rate, so the practical stakes of this dispute were not the base tariff. What is affected is Section 301 exposure: Zoetis’s original complaint stated that CBP’s heading-2309 classification resulted in Section 301 China tariffs being applied to the imports, tariffs that would not apply under the heading-2941 classification the court ultimately adopted. Classification can also affect exclusion eligibility, PGA requirements, and the information required on the entry.
Importers of similar goods should not apply the decision automatically. They should compare their merchandise against the facts established in the case and verify current Chapter 99 treatment separately.
Steps for Pharmaceutical and Animal-Health Importers
Importers should consider:
- Reviewing classifications for antibiotic concentrates and fermentation-derived ingredients
- Documenting active and inactive components by percentage and function
- Identifying whether residual substances are intentionally added or remain from manufacturing
- Reviewing Section 301 and PGA consequences under any alternative classification
- Considering a binding ruling when the facts remain uncertain
Read the Court of International Trade opinion.
Contact the Alba team for assistance reviewing tariff classifications and the related duty and regulatory consequences for pharmaceutical, chemical and animal-health imports.
Subscribe to the ASK Alba™ Trade Brief for timely updates on customs classification and import compliance.
References
- Zoetis Services LLC v. United States, CIT Court No. 22-00056 (decided September 2, 2026) — full opinion searchable via CIT’s slip opinions index: https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/SlipOpinions
- Zoetis Services LLC v. U.S. complaint background, CIT #22-00056 (filed February 24, 2022) — confirms the original CBP classification under subheading 2309.90.1050 and the resulting Section 301 tariff exposure
