Sherka Chemical Co. v. United States

13 Cust. Ct. 73, 1944 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 535
CourtUnited States Customs Court
DecidedAugust 25, 1944
DocketC. D. 873
StatusPublished

This text of 13 Cust. Ct. 73 (Sherka Chemical Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Customs Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sherka Chemical Co. v. United States, 13 Cust. Ct. 73, 1944 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 535 (cusc 1944).

Opinion

Cole, Judge:

Plaintiff imported at the port of New York from Belgium a commodity invoiced as “Potassium oestradiol' solution.” It was classified by the collector as a chemical compound under paragraph 5 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1001, par. 5), which provides:

Par. 5. All chemical elements, all chemical salts and compounds, all medicinal preparatidns, and all combinations and mixtures of any of the foregoing, all the foregoing obtained naturally or artificially and not specially provided for, 25 per centum ad valorem. .

Plaintiff claims that the merchandise is'classifiable as a drug, either free of duty as being in a crude state within the provisions of para[74]*74graph 1669 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940'ed. § 1201, par. 1669), which reads:

Pab. 1669. Drugs, such as barks, beans, berries, buds, bulbs, bulbous roots, excrescences, fruits, flowers, dried fibers, dried insects, grains, herbs, leaves, lichens, mosses, logs, roots, stems, vegetables, seeds (aromatic, not garden seeds), seeds of morbid growth, weeds, and all other drugs of vegetable or animal origin; all the foregoing which are natural and uncompounded drugs and not edible, and not specially provided for, and are in a crude state, not advanced in value or condition by shredding, grinding, chipping, crushing, or any other process or treatment whatever beyond that essential to the proper packing of the drugs and the prevention of decay or deterioration pending manufacture: Provided, That no article containing alcohol shall be admitted free of duty under this paragraph.

or dutiable at 10 per centum ad valorem as having been advanced in condition as contemplated by paragraph 34 of the said act (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1001, par. 34), providing as follows:

Pab. 34. Drugs, such as barks, beans, berries, buds, bulbs, bulbous roots, excrescences, fruits, flowers, dried fibers, dried insects, grains, herbs, leaves, lichens, mosses, roots, stems, vegetables, seeds (aromatic, not garden seeds), seeds of morbid growth, weeds, and all other drugs of vegetable or animal origin; all the foregoing which are natural and uncompounded drugs and not edible, and not specially provided for, but which are advanced in value or condition by shredding, grinding, chipping, crushing, or any other process or treatment whatever beyond that essential to the proper packing of the drugs and the prevention of decay •or deterioration pending manufacture, 10 per centum ad valorem: Provided, That the term “drug” wherever used in this Act shall include only those substances having therapeutic or medicinal properties and chiefly used for medicinal purposes: And provided further, That no article containing alcohol shall be classified for duty under this paragraph.

Two witnesses connected with the Schering Corporation, an affiliate of plaintiff corporation and a pharmaceutical concern whose business includes the marketing of sex hormones, supplied the only testimony.

The vice president of said corporation, a qualified chemist who is “either the author or co-author of a large number of patents concerning the isolation and the production of sex hormones,” described the method of producing the imported merchandise, and its treatment after importation. His testimony supports the following summation: The-source of the imported merchandise is pregnant mares’ urine, containing, as its principal component, oestrone, in combination with other substances including the hormones “equilin, equilenin, hippulin, and so on,” that are “present in a chemical combination with sulfuric acid and glycuronic acid.” The conglomerate mass is decomposed by boiling the concentrate with hydrochloric acid, a mineral acid. The desired oestrone is extracted from the resulting mixture using ether, an organic solvent, that is ultimately eliminated “by certain crystallization procedures * * * in such a way that only oestrone, as such, is crystallized out of the mixture.” The oesfcrone is dissolved in an alkali, potassium hydroxide, and as hydrogen is developed in [75]*75that liquid the oestrone is reduced to a mixture of alpha-oestradiol and beta-oestradiol. This strong alkaline solution, consisting of potassium hydroxide, beta-oestradiol, alpha-oestradiol, and water, is the imported merchandise.

Alpha-oestradiol and beta-oestradiol are chemical compounds identical in their composition but different in their properties. They possess the same empirical formula — the same number of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms — but in each the construction of the molecule is different. In chemical terminology, they are known as stereoisomers. Beta-oestradiol has ho human value. Alpha-oestra-diol is “identical with the hormone produced in the Graafian follicle” in human ovaries, but because.of the presence of impurities and the strongly alkaline reaction which precludes its use either by injection or oral introduction, it is never used, as imported, with the combined substances.

To obtain the desired therapeutic agent, alpha-oestradiol, the imported merchandise is subjected to elaborate chemical processes in plaintiff’s laboratory. The alkali is neutralized by the addition of hydrochloric acid to form potassium chloride that is easily soluble in water, while the oestrone, containing alpha-oestradiol and beta-oestradiol, is insoluble. To eliminate the beta-oestradiol, the precipitate is filtered and dried, then dissolved in methyl alcohol, or methanol, and finally combined with dissolved digitonin. The consequent chemical action produces alpha-oestradiol digitonide that is insoluble and comes out as a precipitate in a methanol solution, containing the excess digitonin and beta-oestradiol. To obtain the alpha-oestradiol from the newly formed compound, the combination is dissolved in pyridine, precipitating the digitonin with ether. As the alpha-oestradiol is finally isolated, it requires further recrystallization to attain the highest degree of purity. The beta-oestradiol is recovered and by further processing is converted into alpha-oestradiol.

Alpha-oestradiol is used by plaintiff in the manufacture of two products, Progynon-B (illustrative exhibit A) and Progynon-DH (illustrative exhibit B), that are offered to correct conditions peculiar to females, principally as remedies for menopause disorders. In the former, the active principle is combined with benzoic acid to form benzoic acid ester, and as such is dissolved, according to predetermined strength, in sesame oil. The solution is dispensed in ampoules and when administered is injected intramuscularly. In the latter, alpha-oestradiol is compounded with starch and milk sugar, and then pressed into tablets that are taken orally. The sesame oil in Progy-non-B and the starch and milk sugar in Progynon-DH are merely inert carriers used to facilitate proper dosage requirements for the alpha-oestradiol, whose therapeutic properties remain unchanged [76]*76throughout. Its medicinal válue is the same when it is offered under either of the said commercial labels as at the time of importation.

■ The process just described is not only the one used by plaintiff, but. it is also the principal method generally employed to make alpha-oestradiol available as a therapeutic agent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Synthetic Patents Co. v. United States
11 Cust. Ct. 98 (U.S. Customs Court, 1943)
Synthetic Patents Co. v. United States
11 Cust. Ct. 157 (U.S. Customs Court, 1943)
Synthetic Patents Co. v. United States
12 Cust. Ct. 148 (U.S. Customs Court, 1944)
Roche-Organon, Inc. v. United States
12 Cust. Ct. 164 (U.S. Customs Court, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Cust. Ct. 73, 1944 Cust. Ct. LEXIS 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherka-chemical-co-v-united-states-cusc-1944.