Court Opinion

ID: 9906663
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-04 21:01:31.860512+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:30.982884
License: Public Domain

Slip Op. 23-170

                 UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

 NUTRICIA NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

                            Plaintiff,
                                               Before: Timothy C. Stanceu, Judge
                   v.
                                               Court No. 16-00008
 UNITED STATES,

                            Defendant.

                                         OPINION

        [Granting defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the tariff
classifications of various nutritional preparations intended for use by patients with
medical conditions]

                                                              Dated: December 4, 2023

      John B. Brew, Crowell & Moring LLP, of Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. With
him on the briefs was Alexander H. Schaefer. Also on the briefs were Maria T. Vanikiotis
and Alexander T. Rosen, Crowell & Moring LLP, of New York, N.Y.

       Luke Mathers, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, of New York, N.Y., for defendant. With him on the briefs were
Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy,
Director, Justin R. Miller, Attorney-In-Charge, and Aimee Lee, Assistant Director,
Commercial Litigation Branch. Of counsel on the briefs was Yelena Slepak, Office of the
Assistant Chief Counsel for International Trade Litigation, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection.

      Stanceu, Judge: Plaintiff Nutricia North America, Inc. (“Nutricia”), contesting the

denials by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“Customs” or “CBP”) of its

administrative protests, claims that Customs incorrectly determined the tariff
Court No. 16-00008                                                                Page 2

classification of five imported products it describes as “medical foods.” Before the court

are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The court awards summary

judgment in favor of defendant United States.

                                       I. BACKGROUND

       The merchandise was imported on four entries made in November 2014 at the

ports of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Washington-Dulles. Upon CBP’s denial of its

protests of the liquidations of these entries, plaintiff commenced this action. Summons

(Jan. 8, 2016), ECF No. 1.

       Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, arguing for tariff classification in either

of two duty-free tariff classifications. Pl.’s Mot. for Summary J. (Aug. 31, 2022), ECF

Nos. 73 (Conf.), 74 (Public); Mem. of Law and Authorities in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. for

Summary J. (Aug. 31, 2022), ECF Nos. 73 (Conf.), 74 (Public) (“Pl.’s Br.”). Defendant

responded and cross-moved for summary judgment, maintaining that the tariff

classification determined by Customs upon liquidation of the entries was correct. Def.’s

Cross-Mot. for Summary J. and Resp. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Summary J. (Oct. 28,

2022), ECF Nos. 80 (Conf.), 81 (Public); Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of its Cross-Mot. for

Summary J. and Resp. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Summary J. (Oct. 28, 2022), ECF Nos. 80

(Conf.), 81 (Public) (“Def.’s Br.”).
Court No. 16-00008                                                                   Page 3

                                        II. DISCUSSION

                           A. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

       The court exercises jurisdiction according to Section 201 of the Customs Courts

Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a)1, which grants the court “exclusive jurisdiction of any

civil action commenced to contest the denial of a protest, in whole or in part, under

section 515” of the Tariff Act of 1930 (“Tariff Act”), as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1515. The

court adjudicates de novo actions to contest the denial of a protest. 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a)(1)

(“The Court of International Trade shall make its determinations upon the basis of the

record made before the court.”).

       The court shall grant summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law.” USCIT R. 56(a). In a tariff classification dispute, summary judgment is

appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to the nature of the merchandise and

the classification determination turns on the proper meaning and scope of the relevant

tariff provisions.” Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. United States, 714 F.3d 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir.

2013) (citations omitted).

       1
           All citations herein to the United States Code are to the 2012 edition.
Court No. 16-00008                                                                  Page 4

                            B. Description of the Merchandise

       The facts stated in this Opinion to describe the imported merchandise are taken

from the submissions of the parties in support of their respective summary judgment

motions and are not in dispute between the parties. From a review of these

submissions, the court concludes that there is no genuine dispute as to the facts material

to the classification of the products at issue.

       The five imported products at issue in this case are “MSUD Lophlex® LQ,”

“Periflex® Infant,” “Periflex® Junior,” “Neocate® Junior,” and “Ketocal® Liquid.”

Plaintiff describes the five imported products as “certain Medical Foods, which are a

unique class of products defined and regulated by the Food and Drug Administration

(‘FDA’) under the Orphan Drug Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360ee.” Pl.’s Br. 1. Plaintiff further

describes these products as “Medical Foods that are specially designed, produced and

intended for use by infants or toddlers who suffer from a variety of diseases or

disorders.” Id. (citations omitted). All five products are labeled as having been

manufactured in Liverpool, United Kingdom. Id. at Exs. 20A–20E.

       MSUD Lophlex® LQ “is used as nutrition therapy for children who suffer from a

severe, life threatening, and permanent disorder called branched-chain alpha ketoacid

dehydrogenase complex (BCKDC) deficiency, (also called Maple Syrup Urine Disease

or MSUD), an inborn error of the metabolism” that causes “impaired ability to
Court No. 16-00008                                                               Page 5

metabolize three of the twenty essential amino acids: leucine, valine and isoleucine.” Id.

at 6–7 (citations omitted).

       Periflex® Infant and Periflex® Junior are produced for use by patients with

Phenylketonuria (PKU), which is an “inborn error of metabolism of phenylalanine” that

is “characterized by inadequate formation of L-tyrosine, elevation of serum

L-phenylalanine, urinary excretion of phenylpyruvic acid and other derivatives, and

accumulation of phenylalanine and its metabolites.” Id. at 8 (citation omitted). The

condition “can produce brain damage resulting in severe mental retardation, often with

seizures, other neurologic abnormalities such as retarded myelination and deficient

melanin formation leading to hypopigmentation of the skin and eczema.” Id. (citation

omitted).

       Neocate® Junior is produced for use by patients who suffer from Eosinophilic

Esophagitis (EoE), which is “an immune-mediated disease of the esophagus,” id. at 10

(citation omitted), Short Bowel Syndrome (SBS), which “may occur when those portions

of the small intestine have been removed or when portions of the small intestine are

missing or damaged at birth,” id. at 11 (citation omitted), and other diseases and

disorders, id. at 10 (citations omitted).

       Ketocal® Liquid is produced for use by patients who suffer from

Intractable/Refractory Epilepsy, Glucose Transporter Type 1 Deficiency (GLUT 1), and

other diseases and disorders. Id. at 12–13. GLUT 1 “is a lifelong genetic metabolic
Court No. 16-00008                                                                  Page 6

disorder that occurs as a result of mutation in the SLC2A1 gene.” Id. at 13 (citation

omitted). “Persons with GLUT 1 demonstrate epilepsy, developmental delays, acquired

microcephaly, cognitive impairment and varying degrees of spasticity, ataxia, and

dystonia.” Id. (citation omitted).

                       C. Tariff Classification under the HTSUS

       Tariff classification under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States

(“HTSUS”) is governed by the General Rules of Interpretation (“GRIs”) and, if

applicable, the Additional U.S. Rules of Interpretation (“ARIs”), both of which are

contained in the statutory text of the HTSUS. Dependable Packaging Solutions, Inc. v.

United States, 757 F.3d 1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citations omitted) (“Along with the

headings and subheadings . . . the HTSUS statute also contains the ‘General Notes,’ the

‘General Rules of Interpretation’ (‘GRI’), the ‘Additional United States Rules of

Interpretation’ (‘ARI’), and various appendices for particular categories of goods.”).

       The GRIs are applied in numerical order, with GRI 1 providing, in pertinent part,

that “classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any

relative section or chapter notes.” GRI 1, HTSUS. GRIs 2 through 5 apply “provided

such headings or notes do not otherwise require.” Id.

       After determining the correct four-digit heading, the court determines the correct

subheading by applying GRI 6, HTSUS (directing determination of the subheading
Court No. 16-00008                                                                   Page 7

“according to the terms of those subheadings and any related subheading notes and,

mutatis mutandis, to the above rules” [GRIs 1 through 5]).

                  D. Judicial Review in Tariff Classification Disputes

       In adjudicating a tariff classification dispute, the court first considers whether

“the government’s classification is correct, both independently and in comparison with

the importer’s alternative.” Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States, 733 F.2d 873, 878 (Fed. Cir.

1984) (“Jarvis Clark”). The plaintiff has the burden of showing that the government’s

classification of the subject merchandise was incorrect. Id., 733 F.2d at 876. Subject to

the plaintiff’s rebuttal, factual determinations by Customs are presumed correct, see

28 U.S.C. § 2639(a)(1), but the presumption of correctness applies to issues of fact and

not questions of law, Goodman Mfg. L.P. v. United States, 69 F.3d 505, 508 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

If the plaintiff satisfies its burden of demonstrating that the government’s classification

was incorrect, the court must ascertain “the correct result, by whatever procedure is best

suited to the case at hand.” Jarvis Clark, 733 F.2d at 878 (footnote omitted).

       In determining the correct classification, the court undertakes a two-step

analysis. Faus Grp., Inc. v. United States, 581 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “The first

step addresses the proper meaning of the relevant tariff provisions, which is a question

of law.” Id. (citation omitted). “The second step involves determining whether the

merchandise at issue falls within a particular tariff provision as construed, which, when

disputed, is a question of fact.” Id. at 1371–72 (citation omitted).
Court No. 16-00008                                                                   Page 8

       “Absent contrary legislative intent, HTSUS terms are to be construed according

to their common and commercial meanings.” La Crosse Tech., Ltd. v. United States, 723

F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375,

1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). When interpreting tariff terms in the HTSUS, the court “may

consult lexicographic and scientific authorities, dictionaries, and other reliable

information sources.” Carl Zeiss, 195 F.3d at 1379 (citing Baxter Healthcare Corp. of P.R. v.

United States, 182 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).

       The court also consults the Explanatory Notes (“ENs”) for the Harmonized

Commodity Description and Coding System (“Harmonized System” or “HS”)

maintained by the World Customs Organization. Although not legally binding, the

Explanatory Notes “are generally indicative of the proper interpretation of a tariff

provision.” Degussa Corp. v. United States, 508 F.3d 1044, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing

Motorola, Inc. v. United States, 436 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The HTSUS is

organized according to Harmonized System rules and nomenclature (pursuant to the

“Harmonized System Convention”). The Explanatory Notes are informative as to the

intent of the drafters of the Harmonized System where, as in this case, the dispute

involves a legal determination of the scope of the competing headings as determined

under the GRIs.
Court No. 16-00008                                                                   Page 9

                                  E. Claims of the Parties

       Upon liquidation, Customs classified Nutricia’s imported products in

subheading 2106.90.9998, HTSUS2 (“Food preparations not elsewhere specified or

included: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other”), subject

to duty at 6.4% ad valorem. Defendant maintains that this classification determination is

correct.

       Plaintiff claims classification of the products in subheading 3004.50.5040, HTSUS

(“Medicaments (excluding goods of heading 3002, 3005 or 3006) consisting of mixed or

unmixed products for therapeutic or prophylactic uses, put up in measured doses

(including those in the form of transdermal administration systems) or in forms or

packings for retail sale: Other medicaments containing vitamins or other products of

heading 2936: Other: Other: Other”), free of duty.

       In the alternative, plaintiff claims classification of the products in a special U.S.

duty-free tariff classification provision within chapter 98, HTSUS, specifically,

subheading 9817.00.96 (“Articles specially designed or adapted for the use or benefit of

the blind or other physically or mentally handicapped persons; parts and accessories

(except parts and accessories of braces and artificial limb prosthetics) that are specially

designed or adapted for use in the foregoing articles: . . . Other”).

       2
         The products at issue were subject to the tariff provisions set forth in the
version of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) that was in
effect on the dates of entry. References to the HTSUS herein are to the 2014 version.
Court No. 16-00008                                                                   Page 10

       The court first determines the correct classification of the five products according

to the GRIs and the tariff provisions in chapters 1 through 97, HTSUS. It then addresses

the issue of whether these products qualify for the special classification provision

plaintiff claims in the alternative.

       F. Application of GRI 1, HTSUS, to Determine the Appropriate Heading

       As required by GRI 1, HTSUS, the court first considers the terms of the headings

and any relative section and chapter notes in ascertaining the correct four-digit heading

for the classification of the imported products. The parties have identified the following

candidate headings:

       Heading 2106, HTSUS:            “Food preparations not elsewhere specified or
                                       included”

       Heading 3004, HTSUS:            “Medicaments (excluding goods of heading
                                       3002, 3005 or 3006) consisting of mixed or
                                       unmixed products for therapeutic or
                                       prophylactic uses, put up in measured doses
                                       (including those in the form of transdermal
                                       administration systems) or in forms or
                                       packings for retail sale”

The parties have not advocated, and the court has not identified, any other candidate

headings within chapters 1 through 97, HTSUS.

    1. Classification under Heading 3004 Is Precluded by Note 1(a) to Chapter 30

       The terms of headings 3003 and 3004 are in parallel and similar in description,

except that heading 3003 is limited to mixed products “not put up in measured doses or

in forms or packings for retail sale,” as follows:
Court No. 16-00008                                                                     Page 11

       Heading 3003, HTSUS:          “Medicaments (excluding goods of heading
                                     3002, 3005 or 3006) consisting of two or more
                                     constituents which have been mixed together
                                     for therapeutic or prophylactic uses, not put up
                                     in measured doses or in forms or packings for
                                     retail sale”

Heading 3003, HTSUS (emphasis added). Thus, the products of heading 3004, unless

unmixed, would be classified under heading 3003 if imported in bulk form. Although

the HTSUS does not define the heading term “medicament,” the Explanatory Note to

HS heading 30.03 states, in language equally applicable to heading 30.04, that “[t]his

heading covers medicinal preparations for use in the internal or external treatment or

prevention of human or animal ailments.”3 EN 30.03 (2014) (emphasis added).4

       It could be argued that the products under consideration are medicaments

because they are “for use in the internal . . . treatment . . . of human . . . ailments.” Id.

       3
         Similarly, dictionaries consider the term “medicament” synonymous with terms
such as “medicinal substance” and “medication.” As defendant points out, Webster’s
Third New International Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary define
“medication” as “a medicinal substance: MEDICAMENT.” Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of its
Cross-Mot. for Summary J. and Resp. in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Summary J. 14 (Oct. 28,
2022), ECFs No. 80 (Conf.), 81 (Public); Medication, WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW
INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY UNABRIDGED (2002); Medication, MERRIAM-
WEBSTER, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/medication (last visited Dec. 4,
2023). The Oxford English Dictionary defines “medicament” as “a substance used for
medical treatment; a medicine, remedy.” Medicament, OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY,
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/medicament_n?tab=meaning_and_use#37536447 (last
visited Dec. 4, 2023) (emphasis added).

       Citations to the Explanatory Notes of the Harmonized Commodity Description
       4

and Coding System are to the 2014 edition.
Court No. 16-00008                                                                Page 12

To that end, plaintiff maintains that “the subject products were conceived, designed,

produced, marketed, and sold for ‘therapeutic or prophylactic use’ to treat persons with

medical problems, which is the defining characteristic of a medicament.” Pl.’s Br. 20.

Plaintiff adds that “[m]edical professionals refer to the deployment of these products as

‘nutritional therapy,’ thus confirming their therapeutic use and value” and that “as

FDA-regulated ‘medical foods’ the subject products are the ‘medicine’ that doctors will

prescribe or recommend to treat children suffering from the referenced diseases.” Id.

       Nutricia argues that in order for defendant to prevail “it must demonstrate that

the subject products are not medicaments” and that “[i]t cannot do so, because the tariff

provisions, coupled with the record evidence, establish that the subject products are

indeed medicaments.” Id. The court does not agree with this analysis. Even if some

definitions of the term “medicaments” were considered broad enough to encompass

what plaintiff describes as “nutritional therapy” or “medical food” products, it would

not follow that chapter 30, HTSUS necessarily includes these products. GRI 1 requires

the court first to determine classification according to “any relative section and chapter

notes,” as well as the terms of the headings when interpreted according to intended

meaning. GRI 1, HTSUS. To rule in favor of plaintiff’s claim for classification under

heading 3004, the court would need to agree with plaintiff’s argument that its preferred

classification under heading 3004 is not precluded by a pertinent chapter note, note 1(a)

to chapter 30, HTSUS. But the court must reject that argument.
Court No. 16-00008                                                                   Page 13

       Note 1(a) to chapter 30, HTSUS expressly excludes from chapter 30, and

therefore from heading 3004, “[f]oods or beverages (such as dietetic, diabetic or fortified

foods, food supplements, tonic beverages and mineral waters), other than nutritional

preparations for intravenous administration (section IV).” The reference to “section IV”

indicates that the products described in the note, i.e., “foods . . . other than nutritional

preparations for intravenous administration,” are to be classified in section IV of the

HTSUS, which includes chapter 21, rather than in section VI (which includes

chapter 30).

       In making an exception to the general exclusion that it applies to chapter 30,

note 1(a) specifically references “nutritional preparations for intravenous

administration.” This term necessarily is interpreted to include nutritional preparations

administered intravenously to treat or manage a medical condition, typically in a

hospital or similar clinical setting. See EN 30.03 (specifying that the heading includes

“[n]utritional preparations for intravenous administration only, i.e., by injection or drip

into a vein.”). The implication of this narrow exception to the general exclusion created

by note 1(a) to chapter 30, HTSUS is that other “nutritional preparations,” e.g., those

formulated to be taken orally by persons with specific medical conditions, possibly are

within that general exclusion.

       Because Nutricia’s imported products are not for intravenous administration, the

question is whether these products are “foods or beverages” within the meaning of
Court No. 16-00008                                                                     Page 14

those terms as used in note 1(a) to chapter 30, HTSUS. The note identifies “dietetic”

and “diabetic” foods or beverages as an example of goods that are within the exclusion

from chapter 30 created by note 1(a), connoting that even foods specialized for intended

use by persons whose medical condition requires a specialized diet fall within the scope

of that exclusion. In describing the products encompassed by that exclusion, the

chapter note does not distinguish what plaintiff would call “medical foods” from other

foods, except for the narrow class of goods comprised of nutritional preparations for

intravenous administration.

       The uncontested facts demonstrate that the note 1(a) exclusion to chapter 30

applies to the products at issue in this litigation. Plaintiff itself describes the five

products as “Medical Foods, which are a unique class of products defined and

regulated by the Food and Drug Administration under the Orphan Drug Act, 21 U.S.C.

§ 360ee.” Pl.’s Br. 1. As plaintiff points out, § 360ee defines the term “Medical Food” as

“[a] food which is formulated to be consumed or administered enterally under the

supervision of a physician and which is intended for the specific dietary management of

a disease or condition for which distinctive nutritional requirements, based on

recognized scientific principles, are established by medical evaluation.” Id. (quoting

21 U.S.C. § 360ee) (emphasis added).

       The HS Explanatory Notes, which although not part of U.S. law are indicative of

the intended meaning of heading terms and section and chapter notes, further indicate
Court No. 16-00008                                                                    Page 15

that note 1(a) to chapter 30 precludes classification of Nutricia’s products under

heading 3004. The Explanatory Notes for headings 30.03 and 30.04, which are

essentially identical, provide as follows:

              The provisions of the heading text do not apply to foodstuffs or
       beverages such as dietetic, diabetic or fortified foods, tonic beverages or
       mineral waters (natural or artificial), which fall to be classified under
       their own appropriate headings. This is essentially the case as regards
       food preparations containing only nutritional substances. The major
       nutritional substances in food are proteins, carbohydrates and fats.
       Vitamins and mineral salts also play a part in nutrition.

              Similarly foodstuffs and beverages containing medicinal
       substances are excluded from the heading if those substances are added
       solely to ensure a better dietetic balance, to increase the energy-giving or
       nutritional value of the product or to improve its flavour, always
       provided that the product retains its character of a foodstuff or a
       beverage.

              Moreover, products consisting of a mixture of plants or parts of
       plants or consisting of plants or parts of plants mixed with other
       substances, used for making herbal infusions or herbal “teas” (e.g., those
       having laxative, purgative, diuretic or carminative properties), and
       claimed to offer relief from ailments or contribute to general health and
       well-being, are also excluded from this heading (heading 21.06).

              Further, this heading excludes food supplements containing
       vitamins or mineral salts which are put up for the purpose of maintaining
       health or well-being but have no indication as to use for the prevention or
       treatment of any disease or ailment. These products which are usually in
       liquid form but may also be put up in powder or tablet form, are
       generally classified in heading 21.06 or Chapter 22.

              On the other hand, the heading covers preparations in which the
       foodstuff or the beverage merely serves as a support, vehicle or
       sweetening agent for the medicinal substances (e.g., in order to facilitate
       ingestion).
Court No. 16-00008                                                                Page 16

EN 30.03, EN 30.04. These Explanatory Notes indicate that note 1(a) to chapter 30 was

intended to draw a bright line between the medicaments of chapter 30 and the foods,

including specialized foods taken orally by persons with medical needs (including, for

example, diabetics), that are to be classified elsewhere in the HS nomenclature. Under

the guidance provided by these ENs, a preparation in which “nutritional substances”

are present only to support a “medicinal substance” (as described in the last paragraph

quoted above) would be classified under HS heading 30.03 or 30.04. Such a product is

to be distinguished from a product comprised entirely of nutritional substances

(described in the first paragraph quoted above), or in which medicinal substances are

present “solely to ensure a better dietetic balance” or “to increase the energy-giving or

nutritional value of the product,” EN 30.03, EN 30.04 (described in the second

paragraph quoted above), which would not. According to this guidance, it is not

sufficient for classification within heading 3003 or 3004, HTSUS that a preparation be

formulated to treat or manage a medical condition: it must do so by administering a

“medicinal substance.” If, instead, the management of the condition is effected solely

by a combination of “nutritional substances,” the preparation is excluded from heading

3003 and 3004 (and from chapter 30 in the entirety) by note 1(a) to chapter 30, HTSUS.

As shown by the uncontested facts, Nutricia’s products fit that description.

       Plaintiff acknowledges that the five products provide “nutritional therapy.” Pl.’s

Br. 28 (emphasis added). All of the ingredients in each of Nutricia’s products
Court No. 16-00008                                                                     Page 17

(described below) are “nutritional substances.” Four of the products in question,

“MSUD Lophlex® LQ,” “Periflex® Infant,” “Periflex® Junior,” and “Neocate® Junior,”

treat one or more medical conditions by means of specially-formulated combinations of

multiple amino acids and other ingredients, as described below. Proteins are included

within the scope of the term “nutritional substances.” See, e.g., EN 30.04. Citing an

expert witness report, plaintiff recognizes that “[p]roteins are essential to the growth

and function of all living organisms, and are comprised of varying sequences of twenty

different amino acids.” Pl.’s Br. 5 (citing Plaintiff’s Expert Report of Dr. Jonah Essers at 9

(May 27, 2022), Pl.’s Br. Ex. 1 (“Essers Report”)). Plaintiff adds that “[h]umans source

proteins (amino acids) by ingesting plant or animal-based foods.” Id. The fifth product,

Ketocal® Liquid, also contains amino acids and manages intractable or refractory

epilepsy and Glucose Transporter Type 1 deficiency by providing “a ‘ketogenic’ diet

that is high in fat, low in carbohydrates, and contains controlled proportions of

protein.” Pl.’s Br. 13 (citing Pl.’s Br. Ex. 5E, at 2).

       Nutricia does not contend, and the report of its own expert witness would rebut

an assertion that, amino acids are outside of the common and ordinary meaning of the

term “nutritional substances.” See Pl.’s Br. 5 (explaining that humans source amino

acids “by ingesting plant or animal-based foods” and, citing Essers Report at 9, that

“[p]roteins are essential to the growth and function of all living organisms”). The other
Court No. 16-00008                                                                    Page 18

ingredients in each of the five products, described below, also are nutritional

substances.

       Plaintiff states that MSUD Lophlex® LQ contains a combination of 15 amino

acids that does not include the “branch chain” amino acids (“BCAA”), which are

leucine, valine, and isoleucine. Pl.’s Br. 7. Nutricia explains that BCAA, if present in the

diet in more than minimal amounts, are toxic to children who have branched-chain

alpha ketoacid dehydrogenase complex (BCKDC) deficiency (also called Maple Syrup

Urine Disease or MSUD), an inborn error of the metabolism. Id. at 6–7 (citations

omitted). The product is formulated to “provide the minimal amount of BCAA needed

for life, without providing any excess that elicits toxicity.” Id. at 8 (citing Essers Report

at 10). Plaintiff adds that “[o]ther ingredients provided in the formula include: water,

apple, grape, blackcurrent [sic] and elderberry juice concentrates, which are included to

provide carbohydrates needed for energy and taste.” Id. (citing Essers Report at 18 and

Pl.’s Br. Ex. 7). Packaging for MSUD Lophlex® LQ, in 4.2-fluid-ounce “pouches,” is

labeled as “Mixed Berry Blast” and provides as follows:

              A leucine, isoleucine and valine-free, berry flavored ready-to-drink
       medical food containing mixed fruit juices from concentrate, amino acids,
       vitamins, trace elements, and some minerals. Contains docosahexaenoic
       acid (DHA). For the dietary management of proven Maple Syrup Urine
       Disease (MSUD) in individuals 4 years and older, including pregnant
       women (in conjunction with standard folic acid supplementation).
Court No. 16-00008                                                                  Page 19

Pl.’s Br. Ex. 20A. The label also states: “Contains 44% fruit juice from concentrate and

natural flavors.”5 Id.

       Plaintiff states that Periflex® Infant and Periflex® Junior are used to treat infants

and children, respectively, who have Phenylketonuria (PKU), “an inborn error of

metabolism,” the “prevailing treatment” for which “is a diet low or absent in foods that

contain phenylalanine, which is a common amino acid, and the inclusion of certain

supplements to provide the minimum amount of phenylalanine required for synthesis

       5
           The ingredients of MSUD Lophlex® LQ are listed on the label as follows:

               Ingredients: Water, apple juice from concentrate (34.1%), grape
       juice from concentrate (6.9%), blackcurrant juice from concentrate (2.5%),
       L-lysine acetate, L-proline, citric acid, L-tyrosine, L-arginine, glycine,
       L-serine, L-aspartic acid, L-alanine, L-threonine, corn syrup solids,
       L-cystine, L-phenylalanine, dicalcium phosphate, L-histidine, elderberry
       juice from concentrate (0.6%), maltodextrin, magnesium acetate, N-acetyl
       L-methionine, L-tryptophan, choline bitartrate, C. cohnii oil*, sugar,
       microcrystalline cellulose, natural flavor, fruit concentrate (apple,
       blackcurrant, radish), L-ascorbic acid, taurine, guar gum, lecithin, xanthan
       gum, M-inositol, potassium sorbate (preservative), artificial sweetener:
       sucralose, ferrous lactate, artificial sweetener: acesulfame potassium,
       sodium benzoate (preservative), zinc sulfate, L-carnitine, niacinamide,
       DL-alpha tocopheryl acetate, calcium D-pantothenate, manganese sulfate,
       cupric sulfate, thiamine chloride hydrochloride, pyridoxine
       hydrochloride, vitamin A palmitate, riboflavin, folic acid, potassium
       iodide, ascorbyl palmitate, mixed tocopherols, sodium molybdate,
       D-biotin, sodium selenite, chromium chloride, phylloquinone, vitamin D3,
       cyanocobalamin.
               *A source of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)

   Mem. of Law & Authorities in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. for Summary J. Ex. 20A
   (Aug. 31, 2022), ECF Nos. 73 (Conf.), 74 (Public) (“Pl.’s Br.”).
Court No. 16-00008                                                                   Page 20

of body proteins.” Id. at 8–9 (quoting Pl.’s Br. Ex. 9 and citing Essers Report at 11–12,

19–20, 24).

       Periflex® Infant contains a combination of 17 amino acids that does not include

phenylalanine and is not naturally found in foods. Id. at 9 (citing Essers Report at 19 and

Pl.’s Br. Ex. 11). “Other ingredients in Periflex® Infant, include: essential vitamins,

minerals, fats and carbohydrates.”6 Id. at 10 (citing Essers Report at 20 and Pl.’s Br.

Ex. 11). Sample packaging in a 14-ounce canister is labeled as a powdered infant

formula, as follows:

       6
           The ingredients of Periflex® Infant are listed on the label as follows:

              Ingredients: Corn syrup solids, refined vegetable oil (high oleic
       sunflower, soy, coconut), calcium phosphate dibasic, L-arginine
       L-aspartate, tri-potassium citrate, L-leucine, L-lysine acetate, L-tyrosine,
       L-glutamine, L-proline, L-valine, glycine, L-isoleucine, CAEM (an
       emu[l]sifier), L-threonine, L-serine, L-histidine, L-alanine, sodium
       chloride, l-cystine, L-tryptophan, L-methionine, magnesium acetate,
       magnesium L-aspartate, potassium chloride, M. alpina oil*, choline
       bitartrate, M-inositol, C. cohnii oil**, L-ascorbic acid, ferrous sulfate, zinc
       sulfate, taurine, L-carnitine, niacinamide, sunflower oil, DL-alpha
       tocopherol acetate, calcium-d-pantothenate, cupric sulfate, manganese
       sulfate, pyridoxine hydrochloride, riboflavin, vitamin A acetate, thiamine
       chloride hydrochloride, ascorbyl palmitate, potassium iodide, chromium
       sulfate, mixed tocopherols, DL-alpha tocopherol, phylloquinone, sodium
       molybdate, folic acid, sodium hydrogen selenite, D-biotin, vitamin D3,
       cyanocobalamin.
              * A source of arachidonic acid(ARA)
              ** A source of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)

Pl.’s Br. Ex. 20B.
Court No. 16-00008                                                                   Page 21

               Periflex Infant is a phenylalanine-free, iron-fortified infant formula
       containing a balance[d] mixture of other essential and non-essential amino
       acids, carbohydrate, fat, vitamins, minerals and trace elements. Periflex
       Infant also contains DHA and ARA, which are found in breast milk and
       are important for infant brain and eye development.

Id. at Ex. 20B. “Directions for Preparation and Use” instruct the consumer to “add five

level scoops” to 5 fluid ounces of “warm or cool sterile water.” Id.

       Periflex® Junior contains a combination of 18 amino acids and also “essential

vitamins, minerals, fats and carbohydrates.”7 Id. at 10 (citing Essers Report at 20–21 and

Pl.’s Br. Ex. 14). Sample packaging in a 16-ounce canister is labeled as follows:

             Periflex Junior is a phenylalanine-free powder containing a
       balanced mixture of the other essential and non-essential amino acids,
       carbohydrate, fat, vitamins, minerals and trace elements. For the dietary
       management of phenylketonuria in toddlers and young children.

       7
           The ingredients of Periflex® Junior are listed on the label as follows:

               Ingredients: Corn syrup solids, canola oil, high oleic safflower oil,
       L-glutamine, L-proline, L-asparagine, L-lysine hydrochloride,
       tripotassium citrate, L-tyrsoine, L-leucine, disodium hydrogen phosphate,
       L-valine, L-serine, L-isoleucine, tricalcium citrate, tricalcium phosphate,
       L-alanine, maltodextrin, L-threonine, sugar, magnesium hydrogen
       phosphate, L-citrulline, L-arginine, L-cystine, choline bitartrate, taurine,
       fractionated coconut oil, CAEM (an emulsifier), L-histidine,
       L-methoionine, L-tryptophan, L-ascorbic acid, M-inositol, ferrous sulfate,
       zinc sulfate, L-carnitine, DL-alpha tocopheryl acetate, manganese sulfate,
       niacinamide, calcium D-pantothenate, cupric sulfate, thiamine chloride
       hydrochloride, pyridoxine hydrochloride, riboflavin, vitamin A acetate,
       folic acid, potassium iodide, chromium chloride, sodium selenite, sodium
       molybdate, phylloquinone, D-biotin, vitamin D3, cyanocobalamin.

Pl.’s Br. Ex. 20C.
Court No. 16-00008                                                                     Page 22

Id. at Ex. 20C. The “Directions for Preparation and Use” inform the consumer that

“[i]ntake is to be determined by a healthcare professional” and instruct the consumer to

“add the prescribed amount of powder” according to specified dilution guidelines. Id.

       Plaintiff’s motion describes Neocate® Junior as a product “used to treat patients

who suffer from: (1) Eosinophilic Esophagitis (EoE), (2) Short Bowel Syndrome (SBS),

. . . as well as other diseases and disorders.” Id. at 10 (citing Essers Report at 25–29). It

contains a combination of 19 amino acids, “targeting the unique biology of a specific

disease state.” Id. at 12 (citing Essers Report at 20–21 and Pl.’s Br. Ex. 16). “Other

ingredients in the formula include: essential vitamins, minerals, fats and

carbohydrates.”8 Id. (citing Essers Report at 21 and Pl.’s Br. Ex. 16).

       8   The ingredients of Neocate® Junior are listed on the label as follows:

              Ingredients: Corn syrup solids (52%), refined vegetable oil (palm
       kernel and/or coconut oil (8%), canola oil (8%), high oleic safflower oil
       (8%)), L-arginine (2.4%), L-glutamine (2.3%), L-lysine L-aspartate (2%),
       and less than 2% of each of the following: tripotassium citrate, calcium
       phosphate dibasic, L-leucine, L-phenylalanine, L-proline, silicon dioxide,
       L-valine, glycine, L-isoleucine, N-acetyl-L-methionine, L-threonine, mono
       and diglycerides, sodium chloride, L-histidine, L-serine, L-alanine,
       magnesium acetate, calcium phosphate tribasic, choline bitartrate,
       L-tryptophan, L-tyrosine, diacetyl tartaric acid esters of mono &
       diglycerides, M-inositol, L-ascorbic acid, L-cystine, propylene glycol
       alginate, taurine, ferrous sulfate, L-carnitine, zinc sulfate, DL-alpha
       tocopheryl acetate, niacinamide, calcium D-pantothenate, magnesium
       sulfate, cupric sulfate, riboflavin, thiamine chloride hydrochloride,
       pyridoxine hydrochloride, vitamin A acetate, folic acid, potassium iodide,
(continued…)
Court No. 16-00008                                                                  Page 23

       A Neocate® Junior package, a 14.1-ounce canister, is labeled as follows:

              Neocate Junior provides complete or supplemental nutritional
       support for children with gastrointestinal impairment due to cow milk
       allergy or other medical conditions of the gastrointestinal tract.

Id. at Ex. 20D. The label also states:

              Amino Acid-Based Nutritionally Complete Powdered Formula
              Hypoallergenic
              For the dietary management of cow and soy milk allergy, multiple
       food protein intolerance, eosinophilic esophagitis, short bowel syndrome,
       and conditions of gastrointestinal tract impairment and malabsorption
       requiring an elemental diet
              A Medical Food
              Unflavored
              Powder – Add Water

Id. The “Directions for Preparation and Use” inform the consumer: “Suggested intake

to be determined by a healthcare professional” and instruct the consumer to “add the

prescribed amount of Neocate Junior” according to specified dilution guidelines. Id.

       The fifth product, Ketocal® Liquid, “is unique in that it provides a 4:1 ratio of fat

calories to ‘non-fat’ protein and carbohydrate calories.” Id. at 13 (citing Essers Report

at 21). It “is used to treat patients who suffer from: (1) Intractable/Refractory Epilepsy,

[or] (2) Glucose Transporter Type 1 Deficiency (GLUT 1)” who require a “‘ketogenic’

diet that is high in fat, low in carbohydrates, and contains controlled proportions of

       chromium chloride, sodium molybdate, sodium selenite, phylloquinone,
       biotin, vitamin D3, cyanocobalamin.

Pl.’s Br. Ex. 20D.
Court No. 16-00008                                                                       Page 24

protein.” Id. at 12–13 (citing Pl.’s Br. Ex. 5E, at 1–3). Plaintiff states that “[t]he fats in

Ketocal® are: Refined vegetable oil (high oleic sunflower, soy, palm), alpina oil,

C. Cohnii oil, mono and diglycerides, and soy lecithin” and that “[c]arnitine and taurine

are added to further optimize digestion and metabolism.” Id. at 13 (citing Essers Report

at 21). “Other ingredients are: water, proteins, minimal carbohydrates, vitamins,

minerals and fiber.”9 Id. at 14 (citing Pl.’s Br. Ex. 18).

       9
        The ingredients of vanilla-flavored Ketocal® Liquid are listed on the label of
outer packaging (containing 27 8-ounce individual containers) as follows:

              Ingredients: water, refined vegetable oil (high oleic sunflower, soy,
       palm), sodium caseinate (milk), whey protein concentrate (milk), soy fiber,
       corn starch, inulin, CAEM (an emulsifier), artificial flavor, dipotassium
       phosphate, gum arabic, calcium chloride, m. alpina oil*, magnesium
       acetate, potassium chloride, c. cohnii oil**, microcrystalline cellulose,
       sugar, fructooligosaccharide, L-ascorbic acid, calcium phosphate
       monobasic, mono and diglycerides, trisodium citrate, sodium hydroxide,
       choline chloride, L-cystine, calcium phosphate dibasic, artificial sweetener:
       sucralose, propylene glycol alginate, ferrous lactate, L-carnitine, taurine,
       M-inositol, L-tryptophan, zinc sulfate, DL-alpha tocopheryl, soy lecithin,
       niacinamide, calcium D-pantothenate, manganese sulfate, ascorbyl
       palmitate, cupric sulfate, thiamine chloride hydrochloride, pyridoxine
       hydrochloride, riboflavin, vitamin A acetate, mixed tocopherols, DL-alpha
       tocopherol, folic acid, potassium iodide, chromium chloride, sodium
       selenite, sodium molybdate, phylloquinone, D-biotin, vitamin D3,
       cyanocobalamin.

       *A source of Arachidonic Acid (ARA)
       ** A source of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)

Pl.’s Br. Ex. 20E. A package of unflavored Ketocal® Liquid is also illustrated. Id.
Court No. 16-00008                                                                Page 25

        An 8-ounce package of the product is labeled as Ketocal® 4:1 LQ Multi Fiber and

states: “A ready-to-feed 4:1 ratio ketogenic formula, for the dietary management of

intractable epilepsy.” Id. at Ex. 20E.

        The descriptions and labeling of Nutricia’s products demonstrate that each of

these five products is comprised entirely of “nutritional substances.” See EN 30.03,

EN 30.04 (distinguishing between “nutritional substances” and “medicinal

substances”). Note 1(a) to chapter 30, HTSUS, by plain meaning and as interpreted

according to EN 30.03 and EN 30.04, excludes from chapter 30 all such products. GRI 1

requires the court to give effect to note 1(a) to chapter 30 and thereby exclude Nutricia’s

products from the scope of heading 3004, HTSUS.

        Nutricia argues that note 1(a) to chapter 30, HTSUS does not defeat its claim for

classification under heading 3004, essentially on the premise that this case presents a

special situation under which chapter note 1(a) to chapter 30 must be disregarded.

According to plaintiff’s argument, the court should compare the heading the

government advocates, heading 2106, HTSUS, with its preferred heading, heading 3004,

HTSUS, and choose the latter based on the “relative specificity” of the two headings

according to GRI 3(a), HTSUS (“The heading which provides the most specific

description shall be preferred to headings providing a more general description.”). By

elevating GRI 3(a) over GRI 1, which takes precedence, this argument misinterprets the

GRIs.
Court No. 16-00008                                                                   Page 26

       Plaintiff bases its argument on note 1(f) to chapter 21, HTSUS, which excludes

from chapter 21 (and therefore from heading 2106) “products of heading 3003 or 3004.”

According to Nutricia’s argument, “[t]he chapter 21 and 30 notes are mutually

exclusive” and “[t]he [Court of Appeals for the] Federal Circuit has held that when

there are two mutually exclusive chapter notes, the product must be classified

according to the terms of the headings, GRI 1 and GRI 3(a), and the most specific

provision prevails.” Pl.’s Br. 37 (citing Bauer Nike Hockey USA, Inc. v. United States, 393

F.3d 1246, 1252–53 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing Sharp Microelectronics Tech., Inc. v. United

States, 122 F.3d 1446, 1450–51 (Fed. Cir. 1997))). See also Pl.’s Resp. to Def.’s Cross-Mot.

for Summary J. and Reply to Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. for Summary J. 17 (Dec. 2, 2022),

ECF Nos. 86 (Conf.), 83 (Public) (“Pl.’s Resp.”) (“Note 1(a) cannot be used to exclude

products from chapter 30 in this case because Note 1(f) to chapter 21 excludes goods

classified under heading 3004 from chapter 21.”).

       According to plaintiff, “when there are mutually exclusive chapter notes

classification is first determined according to the relative specificity of the competing

headings’ text.” Id. (quoting Bauer Nike Hockey USA, Inc., 393 F.3d at 1252 n.6)

(“Resorting to the exclusionary note before applying the rule of specificity . . . would

yield the somewhat arbitrary result that the subject merchandise could be classified

under different chapters based solely on which chapter the analysis began.”).
Court No. 16-00008                                                                   Page 27

       Plaintiff’s “relative specificity” argument is misguided in failing to give effect to

GRI 1, which directs the inquiry to the terms of the headings and the relative section

and chapter notes, with the section or chapter notes and the heading terms given equal

consideration. A critical flaw in plaintiff’s argument is that note 1(a) to chapter 30,

which limits the scope of heading 3004 so as to exclude plaintiff’s goods, and note 1(f) to

chapter 21, which limits the scope of heading 2106, are not “mutually exclusive.”

       Note 1(a) to chapter 30, HTSUS excludes from that chapter a defined class or

kind of goods: “[f]oods or beverages . . . other than nutritional preparations for

intravenous administration.” In contrast, note 1(f) to chapter 21, HTSUS, which states

that chapter 21 “does not cover: . . . Yeast put up as a medicament or other products of

heading 3003 or 3004,” excludes by name one class or kind of goods (yeast put up as a

medicament) but, as is pertinent here, also excludes the “products of heading 3003 or

3004” (emphasis added). In doing so, note 1(f) to chapter 21, HTSUS requires a

classification determination to be made before it can be decided whether the exclusion in

note 1(f) to chapter 21 applies. Therefore, the court must consider the scope of heading

3004 as interpreted according to note 1(a) to chapter 30 as well as considering the effect,

if any, of note 1(f) to chapter 21. When it does so, it must conclude that there is no

occasion to apply note 1(f) to chapter 21 where, as here, a good is excluded from

heading 3004 by operation of note 1(a) to chapter 30. In other words, because note 1(a)

to chapter 30 precludes the court from considering heading 3004 as a candidate heading
Court No. 16-00008                                                                 Page 28

for Nutricia’s products, GRI 1 eliminates heading 3004 from consideration, and the issue

of relative specificity of the competing headings, which is the subject of GRI 3(a), does

not arise. The choice between heading 3004 and heading 2106 is determined

conclusively by GRI 1, not GRI 3(a).

       The problem addressed in Bauer Nike Hockey USA, Inc., under which the

“arbitrary result that the subject merchandise could be classified under different

chapters based solely on which chapter the analysis began,” 393 F.3d at 1252 n.6, is not

presented by this case. The court has begun its analysis by first considering heading

3004, which is plaintiff’s preferred alternative to the government’s classification. But

the same result would obtain were the court to consider heading 2106 in the first

instance. Note 1(f) to chapter 21, HTSUS would require the court, in doing so, to decide

whether Nutricia’s products actually are products of heading 3004. The court must

apply GRI 1 in making this determination, which entails giving effect to note 1(a) to

chapter 30, under which heading 3004 is eliminated from consideration and there is no

occasion to apply note 1(f) to chapter 21. The court, therefore, must reject the premise of

plaintiff’s argument, under which note 1(a) to chapter 30, HTSUS essentially is

disregarded.

       In support of its argument in favor of classification under heading 3004, plaintiff

also argues that heading 3004 is a “use” provision (or “principal use” provision) and

that the court, in determining the classification of the goods at issue, therefore must
Court No. 16-00008                                                                   Page 29

apply additional U.S. rule of interpretation 1(a), HTSUS (“a tariff classification

controlled by use (other than actual use) is to be determined in accordance with the use

in the United States at, or immediately prior to, the date of importation, of goods of that

class or kind to which the imported goods belong, and the controlling use is the

principal use.”). Pl.’s Br. 29 (citations omitted). Plaintiff argues that “[e]ach of the

products is used as nutrition therapy to treat young children with specific and

dangerous medical conditions or disorders” and “have no other use.” Id. at 30 (citation

omitted). According to Nutricia’s argument, the products at issue are of the same class

or kind as medicaments and, accordingly, must be classified by operation of additional

U.S. rule of interpretation 1(a) as medicaments under heading 3004, HTSUS. Id.

(citations omitted).

       Heading 3004 (like heading 3003) arguably contains language implicating use but

is based on an eo nomine tariff term, “Medicaments . . . .” In any event, plaintiff’s

argument overlooks that in this instance there is no occasion to apply additional U.S.

note of interpretation 1(a) (which applies only “[i]n the absence of special language or

context which otherwise requires”) because heading 3004 is precluded from

consideration by GRI 1. GRI 1 requires the court to apply note 1(a) to chapter 30 to

exclude Nutricia’s imported products from chapter 30, HTSUS and, therefore, from

heading 3004, HTSUS regardless of whether heading 3004 possibly could be considered

to be a use provision.
Court No. 16-00008                                                                      Page 30

            2. Heading 2106 Is the Correct Heading for Nutricia’s Products

       Based on the uncontested facts as taken from the submissions of the parties in

support of their cross-motions for summary judgment, there can be no genuine dispute

over whether the five “medical foods” at issue in this case, being specially-formulated

combinations of nutritional substances, are “food preparations.” The next question,

then, is whether any tariff provision excludes the products at issue from chapter 21,

HTSUS, or specifically, from heading 2106, HTSUS. The court concludes there is not.

       Note 1 to chapter 21 (“Miscellaneous edible preparations”) excludes from the

chapter certain foods and food preparations but does not exclude “medical foods” such

as those at issue in this case. In addition, the Explanatory Note to HS heading 21.06 lists

various classes or kinds of products covered by the heading and distinguishes from

them some that are not covered. The EN provides as follows:

              Provided that they are not covered by any other heading of the
       Nomenclature, this heading covers:
                                        *       *      *
              (16) Preparations, often referred to as food supplements, based on
       extracts from plants, fruit concentrates, honey, fructose, etc. and
       containing added vitamins and sometimes minute quantities of iron
       compounds. These preparations are often put up in packagings with
       indications that they maintain general health or well-being. Similar
       preparations, however, intended for the prevention or treatment of diseases or
       ailments are excluded (heading 30.03 or 30.04).

EN 21.06 ¶ 16 (emphasis added). The issue presented by this EN is whether the

reference in the third sentence to “[s]imilar preparations” could be read broadly to

describe the products at issue in this case. Plaintiff argues that the court should
Court No. 16-00008                                                                    Page 31

interpret the third sentence to apply to its medical food products, resulting in

classification under heading 3004 rather than heading 2106, HTSUS. Pl.’s Br. 39. The

court disagrees.

       The paragraph quoted above from EN 21.06 addresses “food supplements” and

“[s]imilar preparations.” It must be read in context with HS note 1(a) to chapter 30

(and, accordingly, with note 1(a) to chapter 30, HTSUS), which expressly excludes all

“food supplements” from chapter 30. Thus, food supplements fall within chapter 21,

while certain products that are “similar” to food supplements (but are to be

distinguished from food supplements) and are intended to treat a specific disease or

ailment are “medicaments” or “medicinal substances” within the intended scope of

HS heading 30.03 or 30.04. A food or beverage intended to treat a specific disease or

ailment is not within that scope, unless it is based on a “medicinal substance” that, as

instructed by EN 30.03 and EN 30.04, is not “added solely to ensure a better dietetic

balance, to increase the energy-giving or nutritional value of the product or to improve

its flavour.” EN 30.03, EN 30.04.

       As shown by the ingredient statements (presented above), each of the products at

issue in this litigation is formulated from a large number of different nutritional

substances but is not based on a “medicinal substance” as required for classification

within heading 3003 or 3004, HTSUS. The implied premise of the argument Nutricia

makes in reliance on EN 21.06 is that its imported products should not be considered to
Court No. 16-00008                                                                Page 32

be “foods” or “food supplements” within the meaning of note 1(a) to chapter 30,

HTSUS. But the facts plaintiff itself puts forth in support of its summary judgment

motion, discussed at length above, demonstrate that these are food products, comprised

of nutritional substances, that note 1(a) to chapter 30, HTSUS excludes from that

chapter.

      In summary, the five products at issue are “food preparations” and are not

“medicaments” of heading 3004, HTSUS. Because no other heading within chapters 1

to 97 of the HTSUS specifies or includes these food preparations, heading 2106 (“Other

food preparations, not elsewhere specified or included”) is the correct heading by

operation of GRI 1.

       G. Application of GRI 6, HTSUS to Determine the Correct Subheading

      The products at issue are not “[p]rotein concentrates or textured protein

substances” of subheading 2106.10, HTSUS and thus are classified in six-digit

subheading 2106.90, HTSUS (“Other:”). The uncontested facts do not demonstrate that

they are described by any of the eight-digit subheadings between 2106.90.03 and

2106.90.95, HTSUS, inclusive. Therefore, the correct eight-digit subheading is

subheading 2106.90.99, HTSUS (“Food preparations not elsewhere specified or

included: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other: Other), subject to duty at 6.4% ad valorem.

This is the tariff classification Customs determined upon the liquidation of the entries
Court No. 16-00008                                                                    Page 33

and the tariff classification defendant advocates in support of its cross-motion for

summary judgment.

      H. Subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS Does Not Apply to Nutricia’s Products

       Plaintiff claims, in the alternative, that even if its products are not

“medicaments” of heading 3004, HTSUS, they still would qualify for duty-free

treatment under a special tariff provision, subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS, which

applies to “[a]rticles specially designed or adapted for the use or benefit of the blind or

other physically or mentally handicapped persons; parts and accessories (except parts

and accessories of braces and artificial limb prosthetics) that are specially designed or

adapted for use in the foregoing articles: . . . Other.”

       In support of its argument that the persons for whom its medical foods are

produced are “physically or mentally handicapped persons,” Nutricia directs the

court’s attention to U.S. note 4(a) to subchapter XVII, chapter 98, HTSUS, which defines

the term “physically or mentally handicapped persons” as follows:

               For purposes of subheadings 9817.00.92, 9817.00.94 and 9817.00.96,
       the term “blind or other physically or mentally handicapped persons”
       includes any person suffering from a permanent or chronic physical or
       mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life
       activities, such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking,
       seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, or working.

       The court finds no merit in plaintiff’s alternate classification claim. U.S. note 4(b)

to subchapter XVII, chapter 98, HTSUS provides that subheading 9817.00.96 does not

cover “(i) articles for acute or transient disability; (ii) spectacles, dentures, and cosmetic
Court No. 16-00008                                                                   Page 34

articles for individuals not substantially disabled; (iii) therapeutic and diagnostic

articles; or (iv) medicine or drugs.” Plaintiff bases its argument on the premise that the

persons for whom its medical foods are produced are “physically or mentally

handicapped persons” and that these food products, even if not considered “medicine

or drugs,” nevertheless are not “therapeutic . . . articles” within the meaning of U.S.

note 4(b)(iii) to subchapter XVII, chapter 98, HTSUS.

       Defendant argues that the medical foods are “therapeutic” within the meaning of

the note. Def.’s Br. 31. The undisputed facts provide some support for that argument.

Plaintiff informs the court—and it is not contested—that the five products are

“indicated for use in the treatment of a variety of diseases, predominantly in very

young children,” that “in some instances they are the only, or primary, available

treatment to ameliorate these severe and sometimes fatal conditions” and that

“[m]edical professionals refer to the deployment of these products as ‘nutritional

therapy,’ thus confirming their therapeutic use and value.” Pl.’s Br. 20.

       Nevertheless, plaintiff urges the court to give the word “therapeutic” a different,

and narrower, meaning when construing U.S. note 4(b)(iii) to subchapter XVII,

chapter 98, HTSUS. According to Nutricia’s argument, the word “therapeutic” as it

appears in U.S. note 4(b) to subchapter XVII, chapter 98, HTSUS is confined to those

articles that heal or cure a disability rather than treat or manage it. Pl.’s Resp. 34.

Plaintiff argues that “U.S. note 4(a) and subheading 9817.00.96 were implemented as
Court No. 16-00008                                                                Page 35

part of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1982,

which implemented the Nairobi Protocol” and that “[t]hese provisions were intended to

liberally and broadly encourage the importation of articles for hand[ica]pped persons.”

Id. (citations omitted).

       In support of its argument, Nutricia quotes Richards Medical Co. v. United States,

910 F.2d 828, 831 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Congress intended to encourage the importation of

that merchandise which is designed to compensate for, or help adapt to, the

handicapped condition. At the same time, Congress did not want to allow duty-free

importation of merchandise which is used to heal or cure the condition causing the

handicap.”). Pl.’s Resp. 35. The facts of the case (decided under the previous Tariff

Schedule of the United States but involving an antecedent provision to subheading

9817.00.96, HTSUS) are inapposite. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(“Court of Appeals”) was considering whether the duty-free provision at issue applied

to an imported hip prosthesis. The court recognized that the term “‘therapeutic’ has

many different meanings and is subject to both broad and narrow interpretations.”

Richards Medical Co., 910 F.2d at 830. Reading the term narrowly in light of the intent of

the provision, the Court of Appeals affirmed a factual finding of the Court of

International Trade in the decision being appealed, under which the prosthetic hip

allowed a patient to “better compensate for the handicap” but did not cure the patient

of an underlying condition, such as arthritis. Based on that finding, the Court of
Court No. 16-00008                                                                   Page 36

Appeals concluded that the imported article was not “therapeutic” so as to preclude

classification within the duty-free provision.

       The flaw in plaintiff’s alternate classification claim does not turn on whether the

medical foods are other than “therapeutic,” in the narrow sense of that term as urged

upon the court by Nutricia. Instead, the error in plaintiff’s classification analysis is its

overly broad construction of the terms of the duty-free provision, considered on the

whole. Read in conjunction with U.S. note 4(a) to subchapter XVII, chapter 98, HTSUS,

the duty-free provision in subheading 9817.00.96 is limited to “[a]rticles specially

designed or adapted for the use or benefit” of a “handicapped” person, i.e., “a person

suffering from a permanent or chronic physical or mental impairment which

substantially limits one or more major life activities, such as caring for one’s self,

performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, or

working.” Plaintiff interprets the terms “handicapped” and “physical or mental

impairment” so broadly as to include virtually any serious medical condition, despite

the words of limitation used to delineate the scope of the provision. Moreover, plaintiff

interprets the term “[a]rticles specially designed or adapted for . . .” so broadly as to

include “foods” or “beverages” designed to treat or manage (but not cure) such medical

condition, provided they are not “medicines or drugs.” The weakness in plaintiff’s

argument lies in its tortured interpretation of each of these terms, considered together

and in context. Nothing in the terms of subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS provides or
Court No. 16-00008                                                                     Page 37

even connotes that Congress, addressing the needs of “the blind or other mentally or

physically handicapped persons” for “articles specially designed or adapted” for their

“use or benefit,” intended the scope of the subheading to be so broad as to cover foods,

food supplements, or nutritional substances or ingredients of any type.10 The court,

therefore, rejects plaintiff’s alternate claim for classification of the five products in

subheading 9817.00.96, HTSUS.

                                   III. CONCLUSION

       The court concludes that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and

that plaintiff has not demonstrated that “the government’s classification is incorrect.”

Jarvis Clark, 733 F.2d at 876. Therefore, defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. Accordingly, the court will deny plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, grant

defendant’s cross-motion, and enter summary judgment in favor of defendant.

                                                   /s/ Timothy C. Stanceu
                                                   Timothy C. Stanceu
                                                   Judge

Dated: December 4, 2023
       New York, New York

       10
          Illustrative of the limited scope of the provision is the formulation of the
related subheadings 9817.00.92 and 9817.00.96, HTSUS (which share the same general
article description with subheading 9817.00.98) and are limited to physical articles
(“Books, music, and pamphlets, in raised print” and “Braille tablets, cubarithms, and
special apparatus, machines, presses, and types”) as opposed to substances (e.g., liquids
or powders) or foods. Under plaintiff’s interpretation, for example, a food or food
supplement specially designed to manage (but not cure) a severe visual impairment
would qualify under the provision even though subheadings 9817.00.92 and 9817.00.96,
HTSUS would not describe it.