Opinion ID: 687717
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Injurious to or destructive of living matter, esp. micro-organisms.

Text: 57 3. [A]n antibiotic substance: one of a class of substances produced by living organisms and capable of destroying or inhibiting the growth of micro-organisms; spec. any of these substances used for therapeutic purposes. Also used of synthetic organic compounds having similar properties. 58 In addition, Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia (7th ed. 1989) defines the term antibiotic as: 59 A biochemical drug, derived from one or more kinds of microorganisms, which has the ability to (1) inhibit the growth (bacteriostatic agent ), or (2) to kill (bactericidal agent ) a number of other microorganisms and thus of immense value in treating a number of diseases that result from microbial infection. 60 The court also notes that each party's expert witness testified that the commonly accepted meaning of the term antibiotic includes the ability of a substance to kill or inhibit the growth of bacteria. Indeed, Lonza's expert witness, Dr. Salzmann, testified that ADC-6 would not commonly be considered an antibiotic precisely because it lacks the ability to kill bacteria or to inhibit bacterial growth. Nevertheless, Dr. Salzmann also testified that he believed ADC-6 was properly classified as an antibiotic, as that term is used in the tariff schedules. Dr. Salzmann thus seems to envision a distinction between the meaning of antibiotic as it is used in the HTS, and the commonly accepted meaning of the term. This position is unfounded. 61 The testimony of both expert witnesses indicates a common understanding of the term antibiotic that is consistent with dictionary definitions previously cited. The court recognizes that Van Nostrand's refers to an antibiotic as a biochemical drug. Still, the defining characteristic of antibiotic substances common to all definitions is the ability to kill or inhibit the growth of microorganisms. The term drug adds nothing to an understanding of what is meant by antibiotic. Segregation of these terms is further supported by the expert testimony of Ms. Gafney, who proffered thienamycin as an example of a substance that is not considered a drug, and yet is still classifiable under Heading 2941 as an antibiotic. Although thienamycin, by itself, exhibits antibacterial properties, it is not considered a drug because it is not used as a medicine or as an ingredient in a medicine. 62 Consequently, upon consideration of all of the evidence presented, the court finds that antibiotics are commonly understood to mean substances, produced either naturally or synthetically, that exhibit an ability to kill or inhibit the growth of microorganisms. And, as noted, tariff terms are generally construed in accordance with their common meaning. In this case there is no evidence that Congress intended to apply any meaning other than the common meaning of antibiotics, nor does there appear to be a conflicting commercial designation of the term. As a result, the court finds that the common meaning of the term drugs is not incorporated into the common meaning of the term antibiotics. Chemical intermediates devoid of the ability to kill or inhibit the growth of bacteria simply do not merit classification as an antibiotic under Heading 2941, HTS. 27 63 Fourth, the HTS Explanatory Notes support the court's conclusion in this case. While the Explanatory Notes do not constitute controlling legislative history, they do offer guidance in interpreting HTS subheadings. 28 Pfaff American Sales Corp. v. United States, 17 CIT ----, Slip Op. 93-101, 1993 WL 209619 (CIT June 9, 1993). Explanatory Note 29.41 offers a narrow definition of the term antibiotics. The government relies upon this definition and others like it to argue that classification under Heading 2941 is restricted to antibiotics that are produced naturally. The government fails to acknowledge, however, that by including certain synthetic products closely related to natural antibiotics and used as such, Note 29.41 includes substances of purely synthetic origin. While a determination of what is meant by closely related is beyond the scope of this opinion, when viewed in its entirety Explanatory Note 29.41 does not appear to conflict with the court's determination of what constitutes the common meaning of the term antibiotics. 29 64 Explanatory Note 29.41 includes examples of substances that merit classification as an antibiotic, as well as substances that are not covered by Heading 2941. Because Explanatory Note 29.41(b) provides that chemical intermediates used in the manufacture of antibiotics and possessing a very low antibiotic activity are precluded from classification under Heading 2941, the government argues that ADC-6, a chemical intermediate devoid of the ability to kill or inhibit the growth of bacteria, is similarly precluded from such classification. Lonza responds by urging that while the term 'antibiotic activity' [generally] refers to a substance's ability to kill or inhibit the growth of microorganisms, ... this construction[,] in the context of [Explanatory Note 29.41,] would render the referenced Explanatory Note meaningless. Pretrial Memorandum of Plaintiff at 32. Specifically, Lonza argues that this reading of Explanatory Note 29.41 cannot be sustained because there exist no specifically defined chemical compounds currently used as intermediates in the manufacture of antibiotics which have the ability to kill or inhibit the growth of bacteria. Id. at 32-33. Instead, Lonza asserts that the phrase 'antibiotic activity' must refer to the antibiotic or therapeutic properties of compounds used as intermediates in the manufacture of antibiotics. Id. at 33. 65 The court finds Lonza's argument thoroughly unpersuasive. The fact that there are no chemical compounds currently used as intermediates in the manufacture of antibiotics, and which possess an ability to kill or inhibit bacterial growth, does not render Explanatory Note 29.41 meaningless; it is entirely possible that such substances exist, but merely await discovery. The authors of the Explanatory Notes cannot be faulted for anticipating future developments in the field of biochemistry when they drafted Note 29.41. 66 Moreover, the absence of any antibiotic activity completely satisfies the criterion of very low antibiotic activity. In the context of the present case, this plain reading of the criteria discussed in Note 29.41 affords the Note's proscription immediate effect. Explanatory Note 29.41 provides that substances exhibiting very low antibiotic activity are properly classified within earlier Headings of Chapter 29, according to structure. The court finds that ADC-6 does not exhibit any antibiotic activity because it lacks the ability to kill or inhibit the growth of bacteria. This accords with the court's determination of the common meaning of the term antibiotic. Because the court finds that very low antibiotic activity embraces no antibiotic activity, the Explanatory Notes indicate that ADC-6 is properly classified earlier within Chapter 29, according to its chemical structure. This is precisely what Customs did when it classified ADC-6 under Heading 2922 as other oxygen-function amino-compounds. Based upon the foregoing analysis, the court finds that Customs' classification of the subject merchandise was correct.