Importer, US Propose Different Ways Forward in Customs Case After CAFC Rebuke of CIT Ruling
Importer Blue Sky The Color of Imagination and the U.S. each proposed a way forward in the importer's customs case on the classification of its planning calendars following a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Blue Sky the Color of Imagination v. United States, CIT # 21-00624).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Blue Sky told the Court of International Trade Feb. 10 that there's new evidence in the case that "may create a genuine dispute of material fact as to the description" of the company's planners. The importer proposed allowing the parties to file dispositive motions that may include additional evidence. However, if the court denies "all such motions," the importer said it would request a trial.
Meanwhile, the government urged the court to reject any attempt to add new evidence to the record. Instead, the court should renew the parties' "respective summary judgment motions" and supplement the motions with "additional short submissions (15-pages) to be submitted simultaneously by the parties."
In December 2025, the CAFC held that the CIT erred in ruling that Blue Sky's planning calendars are diaries under Harmonized Tariff Schedule subheading 4820.10.2010 (see 2512040019). While the Federal Circuit didn't settle on a final classification for the goods, it said the trade court violated the principle of stare decisis by skirting the CAFC's prior interpretation of the term "diary" in Mead Corp. v. U.S.
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 the goods actually fall under subheading 4820.10.2010 as diaries (see 2404100052).
With the case now again before Restani, Blue Sky's proposal is based on the notion that there's additional evidence available, including a "physical sample of the planners in Mead," which CBP and the U.S. have claimed are comparable to Blue Sky's planners "but unlike the Blue Sky planners lack any calendars or other dated pages." Other evidence includes a "physical sample of weekly-view appointment planners that are very similar to the Blue Sky weekly/monthly planners and are likewise designed to allow the user to notate future appointments and events in boxed rows for each day of the week in a certain calendar year, which Customs recently ruled are classified as calendars in heading 4910," the importer said.
In addition, new legal arguments require additional briefing "to explore the applicability of the [explanatory notes] in this case to avoid violating binding Federal Circuit precedent," the importer said.
The government argued that the trade court should instead continue to resolve the case via summary judgment, adding that no additional evidence is needed, particularly since Blue Sky "had the opportunity to conduct discovery and provide the Government with any additional information it intended to use in support of its case." The court should thus "not permit plaintiff to submit evidence not provided in discovery," the U.S. said.