CAFC Rejects Trade Court's Classification of Planners as 'Diaries'

While the appellate court didn't settle on a final classification for the goods at issue, remanding the case to CIT, it did say the U.S. offered "some seemingly persuasive arguments" for why Blue Sky's goods fall under heading 4820 rather than heading 4910 as "calendars."

At issue are Blue Sky's "weekly/monthly planning calendar[s]" that contain "several pages bound together by a spiral." Some pages depict a "traditional monthly calendar," while others "break down each individual week into the seven days." CBP classified the goods under subheading 4820.10.4000 as "other" registers, account books notebooks, diaries and the like, while Blue Sky sought classification under subheading 4910.00.6000 as "other" calendars.

CIT Judge Jane Restani said neither of the subheadings was proper, ruling sua sponte that the goods properly fit under subheading 4820.10.2010 as diaries (see 2404100052). Restani said Blue Sky's product is "used to note future appointments," then reasoned the term "diary" includes "such prospective tools (used for planning ahead)."

Chen, writing for the Federal Circuit, remanded Restani's ruling on the basis that she failed to respect the appellate court's 2002 ruling in Mead Corp. v. U.S. in which the court interpreted the term "diary" to refer to a "retrospective, not prospective" record.

In Mead, the court "construed the metes and bounds of the term" diary, Chen said. The court said a diary is a "record" in that it "recalls or relates past events." A diarist "records events, observations, feelings, or thoughts after they happen," the Mead court held, adding that a diary is "not a place to jot down the date and time of a distant dentist appointment, regardless of whether that appointment would constitute an 'event of importance.'" Chen said this language isn't "mere dictum" but is central for the final holding of the Mead classification decision.

The principle of stare decisis "commands respect for a past interpretation of a tariff classification term," meaning Mead's interpretation of "diary" controls, the court held. Restani thus erred in finding Blue Sky's goods are diaries, Chen said.

In her ruling, Restani said Mead is inapposite, since Blue Sky's products are different from the goods reviewed in Mead. Chen rejected this distinction, finding that Mead "never restricted its construction of 'diary' to the particular merchandise presented," adding that it wouldn't make sense to do so, since "the metes and bounds of a tariff term -- a question of law -- does not turn upon the factual intricacies of the disputed merchandise."

Restani also said Mead didn't apply because the decision "relied on pre-HTSUS caselaw and did not engage with the relevant Explanatory Notes." Chen also rejected this finding from the trade court, noting that Mead "never relied on the vitality of pre-HTSUS caselaw for its holding." And to the extent CIT found the analysis of "diary" in Mead incomplete, "the Trade Court had no liberty to make that judgment call for itself," Chen said.

The Federal Circuit declined to find the proper subheading for the goods, leaving it up to the trade court. However, Chen suggested heading 4820, instead of 4910, may be correct.

The judge noted that "items enumerated within heading 4820 describe stationery items for recording various types of information -- many of them with pre-defined templates allowing users to write down information, much like Blue Sky’s product." Chen added that "Explanatory Note 48.20 explains that heading 4820 'includes ... engagement books,' whereas Explanatory Note 49.10 indicates that 'heading [4910] excludes ... so-called engagement calendars.')."

In a footnote, the judge said that while heading 4820 may prevail over heading 4910, the government's preferred subheading of 4820.10.4000 may not be the best home for the goods at issue. Heading 4820 has two residual "other" provisions, and many of the government's arguments "seem equally, if not more, applicable" to the other one, subheading 4820.10.2060, the note said.

Chris Duncan, counsel for Blue Sky, told us he didn't think there was "clear guidance from the Federal Circuit" on how the ultimate merits of the case might wind up, adding that during oral argument Chen "had a fair amount of skepticism for the government" about its reliance on the Explanatory Notes "when the headings are clear." Duncan said that as the case returns to the trade court, he's considering the various options for the case, which include additional briefing or a trial.

(Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. United States, Fed. Cir. # 24-1710, dated 12/04/25; Judges: Alan Lourie, William Bryson and Raymond Chen; Attorneys: Christopher Duncan of Squire Patton for plaintiff-appellant Blue Sky The Color of Imagination; Monica Triana for defendant-appellee U.S. government)