CIT Says Planners Not Classified as Calendars, Best Classified Under HTS Heading 4820

Judge Jane Restani said the planners "exceed the definition of a calendar," since the planners aren't "merely charts for showing the division of a given year, but rather bound notebooks that include such charts, other features, and copious space to record various types of information." The judge held that while the planners aren't per se classifiable as diaries, since "they are used to note prospective engagements," they have the "same essential characteristics or purposes that unite" registers, account books, notebooks, diaries.

The April 21 decision marks the second time Restani has opined on the proper classification of the planners after the judge previously ruled sua sponte that the goods properly fit under subheading 4820.10.2010 as diaries, reasoning that "diary" includes certain prospective tools (see 2404100052). However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded the judge's decision on the basis she failed to respect the CAFC'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 (see 2512040019).

The case then returned to the trade court for supplemental briefing given that the CAFC declined to find the proper heading for the goods, although it did suggest heading 4820, instead of 4910, may be correct. Picking up the Federal Circuit's cues, Restani ultimately held that heading 4820 was preferable to heading 4910 under the law.

The judge first set out to define the term "calendars," ruling that the term "encompasses systems or charts for referencing given dates where the printed layout of that system or chart is the sine qua non of the merchandise." Restani then said heading 4820, which covers items such as notebooks, letter pads, memorandum pads and diaries, generally describes "stationery items for recording various types of information -- many of them with pre-defined templates allowing users to write down information.”

The court then sought to classify four models of Blue Sky's planners, which each include a yearly overview page showing monthly calendars in a grid box form for a two-year period, two-page monthly views of each month and two-page "weekly view" pages covering each week of the month. The monthly view and weekly view pages each have spaces for which users can write down information relating to those dates.

Restani said these planners can't be classified as calendars of heading 4910, per the court's definition. In a footnote, the judge clarified that while space to make notes doesn't automatically transform an "erstwhile calendar into something else," the "inverse is also true" in that "stamping weekday dates on an otherwise lined notebook page does not make it a calendar." The judge said the "dividing line is whether the calendar layout is incidental to the article’s primary note-taking purpose, or vice versa," which is "determined by the subject merchandise’s physical characteristics such as blank space allocated to note-taking."

The court noted that over two-thirds of Blue Sky's planners are made up of "weekly view" page spreads, "wherein a broad header, eleven words, and seven numbers are printed" in "an otherwise-ruled two-page notebook spread." The planners are "used to note future appointments" and are "advertised as offering ample notetaking space." The judge said the "weekly view" layout "merely curates the user's note-taking."

Instead, the planners are properly categorized under heading 4820, which the CAFC has said includes items described as "stationery items for recording various types of information -- many of them with pre-defined templates allowing users to write down information.” Restani said the weekly view that makes up two-thirds of the planners is best understood as a "'pre-defined template[] allowing users to write down information,' as opposed to a reference tool for exhibiting certain dates on a grid."

The judge lodged an objection to identifying the correct subheading, which is ordinarily what CIT is required to do under the CAFC's Jarvis Clark v. U.S. precedent, since the duty rate for the relevant subheadings under heading 4820 is the same. Restani identified tension between the command in Jarvis Clark and the court's Article III mandate to "not determine moot issues."

However, Restani proceeded to identify the proper subheading "as a matter of judicial economy," due to the "extensive and possibly continuing litigation in this matter." The judge compared subheading 4820.10.20, which covers "other" diaries, address books, memorandum pads, letter pads and like products, and subheading 4820.10.40, a broader "other" provision.

To fall under subheading 4820.10.20, if the planners aren't diaries or address books, the planners would have to be classified as "notebooks," though they are "notebooks in the limited tariff sense," the court said. Restani clarified that the term "notebooks" must be "interpreted in such a way so as to give effect to the other exemplars, specifically those within subheading 4820.10, HTSUS." Thus, the judge concluded that "the term notebooks must only encompass subject merchandise where notes are not being made for a specialized purpose."

As applied here, Blue Sky's planners "transcend this definition," since they "allow note-taking space specifically to organize and plan affairs." As a result, the planners can't be classified as notebooks under subheading 4820.10.20. Instead, the planners fall under subheading 4820.10.40, since, under Mead, day planners that allowed only "a few lines for recording events" and didn't "envision recording of past events" were classified as "articles similar to diaries" rather than "diaries themselves under subheading 4820.10.20."

Resatni said this "logic would compel classification of the weekly/monthly planners" under subheading 4820.10.40.

(Blue Sky The Color of Imagination v. United States, Slip Op. 26-37, CIT # 21-00624, dated 04/21/26; Judge: Jane Restani; Attorneys: Christopher Duncan of Squire Patton for plaintiff Blue Sky; Monica Triana for defendant U.S. government)