Importer Files Complaint in 2nd Customs Case on Planning Calendars
Importer Blue Sky the Color of Imagination filed a complaint on Dec. 22 in a customs case at the Court of International Trade on the classification of its planning calendars. The complaint comes on the heels of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejecting the trade court's previous ruling in a separate case brought by Blue Sky that classified the importer's goods as diaries under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4820.10.2010 (see 2512040019) (Blue Sky the Color of Imagination v. United States, CIT # 22-00008).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
In the present case, Blue Sky made one entry of its planning calendars in July 2019 under subheading 4820.10.2060 as "diaries or notebooks." However, CBP liquidated the goods under subheading 4820.10.4000 as notebooks. In a separate entry, made later in July 2019, Blue Sky classified the planning calendars under subheading 4820.10.2060, though CBP liquidated the gods under subheading 4820.10.2060.
Blue Sky argued in its complaint that its planning calendars aren't "classifiable as diaries or notebooks under either HTSUS 4820.10.4000 or HTSUS 4820.10.2010 or HTSUS 4820.10.2060 because they are not diaries or notebooks." Instead, the goods are "properly classified under HTSUS 4910.00.2000 because they are calendars."
In the separate case brought by Blue Sky, the trade court ruled that the proper subheading for the planning calendars was subheading 4820.10.2010, which covers diaries (see 2404100052). The court said Blue Sky's product is "used to note future appointments," then reasoned the term "diary" includes "such prospective tools (used for planning ahead)."
The Federal Circuit rejected CIT's ruling on the basis that the trade court 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. However, the appellate court didn't settle on a final classification for the planners, remanding the case to CIT.