Court Opinion

ID: 9958874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 14:01:55.125615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:54.875589
License: Public Domain

Slip Op. 24-

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

 BLUE SKY THE COLOR OF
 IMAGINATION, LLC,

                    Plaintiff,
                                                   Before: Jane A. Restani, Judge
             v.
                                                   Court No. 21-00624
 UNITED STATES,

                   Defendant.

                                           OPINION

[In a Customs classification matter, judgment issued declaring classification other than as claimed
by the parties.]

                                                                            Dated: April 10, 2024

Christopher J. Duncan and Elon A. Pollack, Stein Shostak Shostak Pollack & O’Hara, LLP, of Los
Angeles, CA, argued for the plaintiff, Blue Sky the Color of Imagination, LLC.

Monica P. Triana, International Trade Field Office, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division,
U.S. Department of Justice, of New York, NY argued for the defendant. With her on the brief
were Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Patricia M. McCarthy,
Director, Justin R. Miller, Attorney-In-Charge, and Aimee Lee, Assistant Director. Of counsel on
the brief was Fariha B. Kabir, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, International Trade Litigation,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection of New York, NY.

       Restani, Judge: Before the court are cross-motions for summary judgment. Pl.’s Mot. for

Summ. J., ECF No. 20 (Aug. 23, 2023) (“Blue Sky MSJ”); Def.’s Mem. in Supp. of Cross-Mot.

for Summ. J. and Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 25 (Nov. 17, 2023) (“Gov. MSJ”).

Plaintiff Blue Sky the Color of Imagination, LLC (“Blue Sky”) challenges the United States

Customs and Border Protection’s (“Customs”) classification of certain paper products under
Court No. 21-00624                                                                            Page 2

subheading 4820.10.40.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”).

At issue, as framed by the parties, is whether certain notebooks containing calendars are classified

instead as calendars of any kind or “[o]ther” paper products for tariff purposes. See Blue Sky MSJ

at 3. The United States (“Government”) asks that the court sustain Customs’ classification. Gov.

MSJ at 15. For the reasons laid out below, the court concludes that neither classification is correct,

and the paper products are diaries classified in subheading 4820.10.20.10, HTSUS.

   I.      Background

           A. Procedural Background

        There are no material factual disputes in this case. Gov. MSJ at 15; Blue Sky MSJ at 22.

On December 2, 2021, Blue Sky imported ten models of desk calendars and planners and, upon

import, classified all ten models of desk calendars and planners as “[c]alendars of any kind” under

heading 4910, HTSUS. Blue Sky MSJ at 6. At liquidation, Customs reclassified all ten models

of desk calendars and planners as “[o]ther” under subheading 4820.10.40.00, HTSUS. Blue Sky

MSJ at Ex. 4. Blue Sky timely protested Customs’ reclassification. Id. Customs denied Blue

Sky’s protest, and Blue Sky brought this case before the court. Blue Sky MSJ at 7, Ex. 4. Since

this case was initiated, Customs has settled with Blue Sky as to several models of the subject

merchandise; the sole remaining issue before this court is the classification of four models of Blue

Sky weekly/monthly planners. Blue Sky MSJ at 4.

           B. Description of Subject Merchandise

        The subject merchandise consists of four paper products that have variously been called

“planners” and “planning calendars” by the parties. Gov. MSJ at 3; Blue Sky MSJ at 3. The

subject merchandise consists of four different “weekly/monthly” models. Gov. MSJ at 3; Blue

Sky MSJ at 3. Although the sizes vary among the models, all four models include full page month
Court No. 21-00624                                                                              Page 3

calendars followed by weekly sections that include space to write notes. Gov. MSJ at Ex. A; Blue

Sky Reply to Gov. Mot. for Summ. J. at 8–9, ECF No. 26 (Dec. 22, 2023). The subject

merchandise has the term “planner” on the front. Gov. MSJ at Ex. F; Blue Sky MSJ at Ex. 8.2.

The subject merchandise is “used to note future appointments.” Blue Sky MSJ at 13; see Gov.

MSJ at 27. They are spiral bound as notebooks are and contain a few additional pages for addresses

and phone numbers. Gov. MSJ at Ex. A; Blue Sky MSJ at Ex. 13.

   II.       Jurisdiction and Standard of Review

          The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(a). The court will grant summary

judgment if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.” USCIT R. 56(a). Summary judgment is appropriate in tariff

classification cases where “there is no genuine dispute as to the nature of the merchandise and the

classification turns on the proper meaning and scope of the relevant tariff provisions.” Deckers

Outdoor Corp. v. United States, 714 F.3d 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). The court

decides classification de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a)(1) (2018); Telebrands Corp. v. United

States, 36 CIT 1231, 1234, 865 F. Supp. 2d 1277, 1279–80 (2012).

   III.      Discussion

             A. Legal Framework

          The meaning of a tariff term is a question of law, and whether subject merchandise falls

under any given tariff term is a question of fact. See Wilton Indus. v. United States, 741 F.3d

1263, 1265–66 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citations omitted). The plaintiff has the burden of establishing

that the government’s classification of the subject merchandise was incorrect but does not bear the

burden of establishing the correct classification; instead, it is the court’s independent duty to arrive

at “the correct result, by whatever procedure is best suited to the case at hand.” Jarvis Clark Co.
Court No. 21-00624                                                                           Page 4

v. United States, 733 F.2d 873, 878 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In making this determination, the court “must

consider whether the government’s classification is correct, both independently and in comparison

with the importer’s alternative.” Id.

       In order to determine the meaning of and apply a tariff term to the facts at hand, the court

relies on the General Rules of Interpretation (“GRIs”) and, if applicable, the Additional U.S. Rules

of Interpretation. Wilton, 741 F.3d at 1266. The court applies the GRIs in numerical order, and

only proceeds to each subsequent GRI if a previous GRI alone cannot classify the goods. Id. The

first GRI, GRI 1, requires classification to “be determined according to the terms of the headings

and any relative section or chapter notes . . . .” GRI 1, HTSUS. HTSUS chapter and section notes

are considered binding statutory law. See BenQ Am. Corp. v. United States, 646 F.3d 1371, 1376

(Fed. Cir. 2011).

       Tariff terms are generally adopted from the Harmonized System (“HS”), an international

product nomenclature that the U.S. implements as the HTSUS. See Marubeni Am. Corp. v. United

States, 35 F.3d 530, 532–33 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (describing the adoption of the HTSUS system). The

HS is the product of a treaty, the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity

Description and Coding System (“the Convention”), which the U.S. acceded to in 1989.1 When

adopting the HS, the United States agreed to adopt the same tariff language as the other negotiating

parties up to the six-digit coding level. Carl Zeiss, Inc. v. United States, 195 F.3d 1375, 1378 n.1

(Fed. Cir. 1999). The Convention is not a self-executing treaty; this agreement is implemented

1
  See U.S. Dep’t of State, Treaties in Force, A List of Treaties and Other International Agreements
of the United States in Force on January 1, 2020, https://www.state.gov/wp-content
/uploads/2020/08/TIF-2020-Full-website-view.pdf (last visited Mar. 21, 2024); International
Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, signed June 14,
1983, amended June 24, 1986, https://www.wcoomd.org/-/media/wco/public/global/pdf/topics/
nomenclature/instruments-and-tools/hs-convention/hs-convention_en.pdf?la=en (last visited Apr.
4, 2024).
Court No. 21-00624                                                                             Page 5

into U.S. law by Congressional statute.2 See 19 U.S.C. § 3004 (1988) (implementing the HS into

U.S. law).

       The United States adopted the HS and implemented it as the HTSUS to achieve

“harmonization” of the tariff schedule; the intent was “to implement in United States law the

nomenclature established internationally by the Convention.” 19 U.S.C. § 3001 (1988); see also

Value Vinyls, Inc. v. United States, 568 F.3d 1374, 1378–1379 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting H. R.

Rep. No. 100–576, at 548 (1988) (Conf. Rep.), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1581);

Marubeni Am. Corp., 35 F.3d at 532. The HTSUS “provides a common core language for trade.”

Marubeni Am. Corp., 35 F.3d at 533. In implementing the HS into U.S. law, Congress expressly

stated that its purpose was “to implement in United States law the nomenclature established

internationally by the Convention.” 19 U.S.C. § 3001. Thus, wherever no evidence exists to

suggest a Congressional intent to alter the meaning of the HS terms when issuing the HTSUS,

courts will presume that Congress intended to implement the unchanged international

nomenclature utilized by the HS into U.S. law.3

2
  Self-executing treaties become part of the law of the land through U.S. ratification; non self-
executing treaties are implemented by the legislature. See Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253, 254,
314 (1829), overruled on other grounds by United States v. Percheman, 32 U.S. 51 (1833) (“Our
constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. . . . But when the terms of the stipulation
import a contract, when either of the parties engages to perform a particular act, the treaty addresses
itself to the political, not the judicial department; and the legislature must execute the contract
before it can become a rule for the Court.”).
3
  Congress can and has varied from the language of the HS when it deems it necessary to do so; in
the absence of evidence of an intent to vary from the HS language, it is reasonable to infer that the
stated Congressional intent to implement the “nomenclature of the Convention” governs the
meaning of the HTSUS. For an example of language that could have been varied from but clearly
was not, see heading 8204, HTSUS (“Hand-operated spanners and wrenches”) implementing HS
82.04 (“Hand-operated spanners and wrenches”). HTSUS 8204 (2024); HS 82.04 (2022). In
contrast, see HS 87.05 where “breakdown lorries, crane lorries, fire fighting vehicles, concrete
mixer lorries, road sweeper lorries, spraying lorries” became “wreckers, mobile cranes, fire
fighting vehicles, concrete mixers, road sweepers, spraying vehicles,” in heading 8705, HTSUS.
See HS 87.05 (2022); HTSUS 8705 (2024).
Court No. 21-00624                                                                            Page 6

       When “a tariff term is not defined in either the HTSUS or its legislative history, the term’s

correct meaning is its common or dictionary meaning in the absence of evidence to the contrary.”

Russell Stadelman & Co. v. United States, 242 F.3d 1044, 1048 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citations

omitted). In construing tariff terms, the court may “consult lexicographic and scientific authorities,

dictionaries, and other reliable information” or may rely on its “own understanding of the terms

used.” Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. United States, 182 F.3d 1333, 1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 1999)

(citation omitted). Courts will also look to the Explanatory Notes (“ENs”) to the Harmonized

Commodity Description and Coding System for guidance in interpreting the HTSUS terms. Carl

Zeiss, Inc., 195 F.3d at 1378 n.1. The ENs are not dispositive evidence of the meaning of the tariff

terms,4 but the ENs are “generally indicative of [the] proper interpretation of the various

provisions” and so are persuasive evidence of the international meaning of the tariff terms. 5 Carl

4
  When it implemented the HS into U.S. law, Congress was mindful that the ENs, unlike the HS,
were not part of the terms of the Convention’s agreement and thus the ENs were not binding on
the United States in the same way that the agreement to adopt the HS nomenclature was. See H.
R. Rep. No. 100–576, at 549 (1988) (Conf. Rep.), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1582
(“Although generally indicative of proper interpretation of the various provisions of the
Convention, the Explanatory Notes, like other similar publications of the Council, are not legally
binding on contracting parties to the Convention. Thus, while they should be consulted for
guidance, the Explanatory Notes should not be treated as dispositive.”). Nonetheless, Congress
was also mindful that the ENs represent useful elaboration on the international meaning of the
tariff terms, which the United States had agreed to adopt and which Congress has explicitly stated
that it was its intent to implement into U.S. law. See id.; see also 19 U.S.C. § 3001. Thus, absent
evidence of a specific Congressional intent to adopt a meaning contrary to the ENs, the ENs are
persuasive evidence of what the tariff terms may mean on an international level, and are persuasive
evidence of the meaning of the language adopted by Congress.
5
  Congress may diverge from the international meaning; regardless of U.S. treaty obligations,
Congress always retains the right to adopt whatever laws it thinks are “necessary and proper.”
U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 18; see also Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 509 n.5 (2008) (“Whether
or not the United States ‘undertakes’ to comply with a treaty says nothing about what laws it may
enact. The United States is always ‘at liberty to make . . . such laws as [it] think[s] proper.’”). In
this case, evidence before the court indicates that, with this particular treaty, the overall
Congressional intent was to adhere to the meaning of the international nomenclature in U.S. law.
This may not be the case in all instances of U.S. implementation of self-executing treaties, and
Court No. 21-00624                                                                            Page 7

Zeiss, Inc., 195 F.3d at 1378 n.1; see also BenQ Am. Corp., 646 F.3d at 1376; H.R. Rep. No. 100-

576, 549, reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1547, 1582.

       English is spoken in both the United Kingdom and in the United States of America, but

there are some linguistic distinctions among the dialects spoken by the two countries. See, e.g.,

Victoria’s Secret Direct, LLC v. United States, 37 CIT 573, 585–86, 908 F. Supp. 2d 1332, 1345

(2013); Jing Mei Auto. (USA) v. United States, Slip Op. 23-180, 2023 WL 9792953, at *12 (CIT

Dec. 18, 2023). Because the court aims to understand what a tariff term would mean within context

of its origin as part of the “international nomenclature” for trade, the court presumes that HS terms

that are implemented into the HTSUS without any alteration may encompass both the British and

American definitions of the term. See, e.g., Victoria’s Secret, 37 CIT at 585–86, 908 F. Supp. 2d

at 1345; Jing Mei Auto., 2023 WL 9792953, at *12. When Congress wishes to exclude a British

definition or otherwise alter the HTSUS, it can change the HS language or otherwise adopt an

Additional U.S. Rule of Interpretation (“ARI”). Lerner New York, Inc. v. United States, 37 CIT

604, 617, 908 F. Supp. 2d 1313, 1326 (2013) (noting availability of Additional U.S. Rules of

Interpretation and assessing an instance in which Congress had replaced the British “vest” with

the American “tank top”). In the absence of a specific, American change, the court aims to identify

what the tariff term would mean if used as part of the “common core language for trade” and where

appropriate consider the British definition of the term.6

when interpreting a statute that implements a treaty the court must always examine Congressional
guidance prior to looking to the international document for the meaning of a U.S. statute.
6
  The HS was developed through the Customs Co-Operation Council (“the Council”). See
Marubeni Am. Corp., 35 F.3d at 533. The Council was established by treaty in 1952. See
Convention Establishing a Customs Co-Operation Council, signed Dec. 15, 1950,
https://www.wcoomd.org/-/media/wco/public/global/pdf/about-us/legal-
instruments/conventions-and-agreements/ccc/convccc.pdf?la=en (last visited Mar. 29, 2024)
(entered into force Nov. 4, 1952). The United Kingdom was a contracting party at the time of the
Court No. 21-00624                                                                             Page 8

       In addition to its English version, the Convention was also drafted in French; the French

and English texts are considered equally authoritative treaty texts.7 In both treaty versions, parties

agree to adopt the international nomenclature of the Convention; where the English text indicates

that the parties undertake to adopt the language of the HS, the French text indicates that the parties

will adopt the language of the “Système harmonisé” or “SH.”8 Accordingly, the HS is also issued

in French,9 and the French SH, like the English HS, implements the nomenclature of the

Council’s origin; the United States did not ratify or accede to the Council until 1970. See World
Customs Org., Position as Regards Ratifications and Accessions, https://www.wcoomd.org/-
/media/wco/public/global/pdf/about-us/legal-instruments/conventions-and-agreements/
conventions/sg0228ea.pdf?la=en (last updated June 30, 2023). The original Convention on
Nomenclature signed in 1950 was issued in English and French, with both texts equally
authoritative, and the English version contains British spellings. See Convention on Nomenclature
for the Classification of Goods in Customs Tariffs, signed Dec. 15, 1950,
https://www.wcoomd.org/-/media/wco/public/global/pdf/about-us/legal-instruments/conventions
-and-agreements/conventions/nom_conv_bil.pdf?la=en (last visited Mar. 29, 2024); Appendix to
the Convention on Nomenclature for the Classification of Goods in Customs Tariffs § VI, signed
Dec.     15,     1950,     https://www.wcoomd.org/-/media/wco/public/global/pdf/about-us/legal-
instruments/conventions-and-agreements/conventions/nom_conv_bil.pdf?la=en (last visited Mar.
29, 2024) (“colour”). British spelling persists in the 2022 HS Nomenclature. See generally HS
Nomenclature 2022 edition, Chapter 32, https://www.wcoomd.org/en/topics/nomenclature
/instrument-and-tools/hs-nomenclature-2022-edition/hs-nomenclature-2022-edition.aspx              (last
visited Mar. 29, 2024) (“colouring”). The court therefore presumes that these terms are authored
in British English at the international level and, if unchanged from that original language, the
British English terms are adopted by Congress.
7
  See the Convention, Art. 20, (“Done at Brussels on the 14th day of June 1983 in the English and
French languages, both texts being equally authentic . . . .”); see also Convention Internationale
sur le Système Harmonisé de Désignation et de Codification des Marchandises, Art. 20, signed
June 14, 1983; amended June 24, 1986, (“the Convention (French Edition)”),
https://www.wcoomd.org/-/media/wco/public/fr/pdf/topics/nomenclature/instruments-and-
tools/hs-convention/hs-convention_fr.pdf?la=fr (last visited Mar. 27, 2024) (“Fait à Bruxelles, le
14 juin 1983 en langues française et anglaise, les deux textes faisant également foi . . . .”).
8
  See the Convention (French Edition), Art. 3 (“[S]es nomenclatures tarifaire et statistiques soient
conformes au Système harmonisé . . . .”) (emphasis added); see also the Convention, Art. 3 (“Each
Contracting Party undertakes . . . [that] its Customs tariff and statistical nomenclatures shall be in
conformity with the Harmonized System. . . . [I]t shall use all the headings and subheadings of the
Harmonized System without addition or modification . . . .”).
9
   See, e.g., Organisation Mondiale des Douanes, Nomenclature du SH Édition 2022,
https://www.wcoomd.org/fr/topics/nomenclature/instrument-and-tools/hs-nomenclature-2022-
edition.aspx (last visited Mar. 22, 2024).
Court No. 21-00624                                                                            Page 9

Convention that the parties have agreed to adopt.10 Where treaty provisions are drafted in two

different languages, if the two drafts can be read to agree, “that construction which establishes

this conformity ought to prevail.” United States v. Percheman, 32 U.S. 51, 52 (1833).

           B. Competing Tariff Provisions

       Customs classified the paper items at issue here under subheading 4820.10.40.00, HTSUS,

which reads:

       Heading 4820            Registers, account books, notebooks, order books,
                               receipt books, letter pads, memorandum pads,
                               diaries and similar articles, exercise books, blotting
                               pads, binders (looseleaf or other), folders, file
                               covers, manifold business forms, interleaved carbon
                               sets and other articles of stationery, of paper or
                               paperboard; albums for samples or for collections
                               and book covers (including cover boards and book
                               jackets) of paper or paperboard:

       4820.10                 Registers, account books, notebooks, order books, receipt
                               books, letter pads, memorandum pads, diaries and similar
                               articles:11

       4820.10.20              Diaries, notebooks and address books, bound; memorandum
                               pads, letter pads and similar articles

       4820.10.20.10           Diaries and address books

       4820.10.40.00           Other

10
   See the Convention (French Edition), Art. 3 (“[S]es nomenclatures tarifaire et statistiques soient
conformes au Système harmonisé . . . .”) (emphasis added); see also the Convention, Art. 3 (“Each
Contracting Party undertakes . . . [that] its Customs tariff and statistical nomenclatures shall be in
conformity with the Harmonized System . . . .”) (emphasis added).
11
   In French, this section reads “Registres, livres comptables, carnets (de notes, de commandes, de
quittances), blocs-mémorandums, blocs de papier à lettres, agendas et ouvrages similaires.” See
Organisation Mondiale des Douanes, Nomenclature du SH Édition 2017, 48.20,
https://www.wcoomd.org/-/media/wco/public/fr/pdf/topics/nomenclature/instruments-and-
tools/hs-nomenclature-2017/2017/1048_2017f.pdf?la=fr (last visited Apr. 4, 2024).
Court No. 21-00624                                                                      Page 10

       Blue Sky argues that the paper merchandise is better classified under subheading

4910.00.20.00, HTSUS, which reads:

       Heading 4910           Calendars of any kind, printed, including calendar
                              blocks:12
                                 Printed on paper or paperboard in whole or
                                 in part by a lithographic process:

       4910.00.20.00                  Not over 0.51 mm in thickness

       4910.00.40.00                  Over 0.51 mm in thickness

       4910.00.60.00              Other

Both of these provisions classify items which are normally imported duty free, but Customs’

classification falls under 9903.88.03, HTSUS which provides a duty rate of 25 percent ad valorem

pursuant to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (codified as amended at 19 U.S.C. § 2411). Gov.

MSJ at 2. If the subject merchandise is classified under subheading 4910.00.20.00, HTSUS,

however, it is not subject to the additional Section 301 duty. Id.

           C. Argument

       Blue Sky argues that the merchandise in this case was incorrectly classified as “[o]ther”

paper products when it should in fact be classified as calendars. Blue Sky MSJ at 3. Blue Sky

argues that this classification is appropriate because the calendar provision is an eo nomine

provision that the product by definition meets. Blue Sky MSJ at 16–18. Blue Sky further argues

that because there is no ambiguity in the HTSUS provision, the ENs should not be reached in this

case because they conflict with the HTSUS’s unambiguous language. Blue Sky MSJ at 18–20.

The Government argues that the subject merchandise is not calendars, but is properly found to be

12
  In French, this section reads “Calendriers de tous genres, imprimés, y compris les blocs de
calendriers à effeuiller.” See Organisation Mondiale des Douanes, Nomenclature du SH Édition
2017, 49.10, https://www.wcoomd.org/-/media/wco/public/fr/pdf/topics/nomenclature/instru
ments-and-tools/hs-nomenclature-2017/2017/1049_2017f.pdf?la=fr (last visited Apr. 4, 2024).
Court No. 21-00624                                                                           Page 11

“similar articles” to those listed in subheading 4820.10.40.00, HTSUS. Gov. MSJ at 14. The

Government supports this argument by asserting that the predominant use of the objects is not as

calendars, and that the ENs support that the product should not be classified as a calendar. Gov.

MSJ at 17–22. The Government further argues that the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Mead Corp. v.

United States, 283 F.3d 1342, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2002) addressed a similar set of facts and classified

the subject merchandise in that case as “[o]ther” paper products. Gov. MSJ at 23. The court begins

its analysis under GRI 1.

           D. Tariff Classification of the Paper Merchandise

       As a threshold matter, the court must determine whether the merchandise is properly

classified under heading 4910, HTSUS, or heading 4820, HTSUS. Heading 4820, HTSUS, falls

within Chapter 48 of the HTSUS, which is generally described as containing headings that classify

“paper and paperboard; articles of paper pulp, of paper or of paperboard.” Chapter 48, HTSUS

(2020). Heading 4910, HTSUS falls within Chapter 49 of the HTSUS, which contains headings

which classify “printed books, newspapers, pictures and other products of the printing industry;

manuscripts, typescripts and plans.” Chapter 49, HTSUS (2020). While Chapter 49 includes paper

products where the printing provides the essential character of the articles, the ENs clarify that

Chapter 48 is for other paper products that can be used to record various kinds of information.

Compare EN 48.20 (“Some articles of this heading often contain a considerable amount of printed

matter but remain classified in this heading (and not Chapter 49) provided that the printing is

subsidiary to their primary use, for example . . . diaries (essentially for writing).”), with EN 49.10

(“This heading relates to calendars of any kind . . . provided that the printing gives the article its

essential character.”).
Court No. 21-00624                                                                         Page 12

       Blue Sky argues that these products are eo nomine calendars. Blue Sky MSJ at 18. The

Government argues that although the subject merchandise contains some limited printed calendar

pages the subject merchandise is not defined by those pages, but instead as a whole is defined by

space to record information. Gov. MSJ at 21. To begin the eo nomine analysis, the court looks to

the Oxford English Dictionary,13 which defines a calendar as:

       The system according to which the beginning and length of successive civil years,
       and the subdivision of the year into its parts, is fixed; as the Babylonian, Jewish,
       Roman, or Arabic calendar

       [or]

       A table showing the division of a given year into its months and days, and referring
       the days of each month to the days of the week; often also including important
       astronomical data, and indicating ecclesiastical or other festivals, and other events
       belonging to individual days. Sometimes containing only facts and dates belonging
       to a particular profession or pursuit, as Gardener’s Calendar, Racing Calendar, etc.
       Also a series of tables, giving these facts more fully; an almanac

       [or]

       A contrivance for reckoning days, months, etc.14

Portions of the subject merchandise meet this definition, but the whole of each item of the subject

merchandise classified in this case exceeds Blue Sky’s proffered eo nomine classification, as the

products are not merely charts for showing the division of a given year, but rather are bound

notebooks that contain charts that meet the calendar definition along with space to write

information about each day/month as well as space to write additional notes, addresses, and

13
   In order to support its argument, Blue Sky cites to the Oxford American Dictionary’s definition
of “calendar.” Blue Sky MSJ at 14. The Government cites to several other definitions. Gov. MSJ
at 18. At oral argument, Blue Sky confirmed that the court should look to British English to define
the tariff terms. As British English “calendar” is what informs the HTSUS, reference to the Oxford
English Dictionary is appropriate. See, e.g., Victoria’s Secret, 37 CIT at 585–86, 908 F. Supp. 2d
at 1345.
14
    Calendar, Oxford Eng. Dictionary, https://www.oed.com/dictionary/calendar_n?tl=true (last
visited Mar. 21, 2024).
Court No. 21-00624                                                                          Page 13

telephone numbers. The subject merchandise in this case serves a consumer that not only wishes

to keep track of the days, but to make notations regarding them, and thus heading 4820, HTSUS,

not heading 4910, HTSUS, is the appropriate heading here, as the ENs further demonstrate.15

       The EN associated with heading 4910, HTSUS clarifies that heading 4910, HTSUS “does

not cover articles whose essential character is not determined by the presence of a calendar” and

also excludes “[m]emorandum pads incorporating calendars and diaries (including so-called

engagement calendars) (heading 48.20).”16 EN 49.10. The Cambridge Essential British English

dictionary defines a diary as either “a book in which you write about what you have done and your

thoughts and feelings,” or “a book in which you write things that you must remember to do.” 17

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a diary as “[a] daily record of events or transactions, a

journal; specifically, a daily record of matters affecting the writer personally, or which come under

his or her personal observation” or “[a] book prepared for keeping a daily record, or having spaces

with printed dates for daily memoranda and jottings; also, applied to calendars containing daily

memoranda on matters of importance to people generally, or to members of a particular profession,

15
   Blue Sky argues that the ENs should be ignored here because they conflict with the unambiguous
language of heading 4910, HTSUS. Blue Sky MSJ at 18. There is a difference between a
“calendar” and a “book with a calendar,” just as there is a difference between a “wheel” and a
“vehicle that moves by wheels.” The language of heading 4910, HTSUS, is neither so
unambiguous as applied here that reference to the ENs is inappropriate nor, when properly
understood, does the language of the EN conflict with the language of heading 4910, HTSUS.
16
   Blue Sky argues that because the paper products expire, this makes them calendars. Blue Sky
MSJ at 18. The Government responds that the ENs clarify that merely being “dated” does not
make an item a calendar. Gov. MSJ at 19–20. Reviewing the EN, it is clear that, even if portions
of the subject merchandise could be defined as calendars, not all items incorporating calendars are
covered by heading 4910’s “calendars of any kind.” See EN 49.10. Blue Sky’s argument is
therefore not persuasive.
17
    Diary, Cambridge Dictionary, Essential British English, https://dictionary.cambridge.org
/dictionary/essential-british-english/diary (last visited Feb. 21, 2024).
Court No. 21-00624                                                                          Page 14

occupation, or pursuit.”18 These broad definitions recognize two different uses of the same word:

diaries are both retrospective journals, and prospective scheduling devices. Examining the subject

merchandise in this case, it appears that the court is presented with a series of notebooks “in which

you write things that you must remember to do.” The subject merchandise therefore appears to

the court to be diaries, and thus properly excluded from heading 4910, HTSUS and properly

classified within heading 4820, HTSUS.

       This conclusion is further supported by examination of the French SH text, which uses

“agendas” in place of the English “diary.”19 “Agendas” in French means “[r]egistre, carnet

comportant un calendrier et dans lequel on inscrit pour chaque jour ce que l’on se propose de

faire,”20 or “carnet de rendez-vous,”21 which roughly translates as “registers, a notebook with a

calendar and in which one writes for each day what one proposes to do” and “appointment book.”22

Where, as here, the French and English texts may be read in agreement, “that construction which

establishes this conformity ought to prevail.” Percheman, 32 U.S. at 52.

18
   Diary, Oxford Eng. Dictionary, https://www.oed.com/dictionary/diary_n?tab=meaning_and_
use#6942057 (last visited Mar. 18, 2024).
19
    “Registres, livres comptables, carnets (de notes, de commandes, de quittances), blocs-
mémorandums, blocs de papier à lettres, agendas et ouvrages similaires.” See Organisation
Mondiale des Douanes, Nomenclature du SH Édition 2017, 48.20, https://www.wcoomd.org/-
/media/wco/public/fr/pdf/topics/nomenclature/instruments-and-tools/hs-nomenclature-
2017/2017/1048_2017f.pdf?la=fr (last visited Apr. 4, 2024).
20
    Agenda, Dictionnaire de L’Academie Francaise, https://www.dictionnaire-academie.fr/
article/A9A0834 (last visited Mar. 22, 2024).
21
   Agenda, Cambridge French-English Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/
french-english/agenda (last visited Mar. 22, 2024).
22
   See Cambridge French–English Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/french-
english/ (last visited Mar. 27, 2024).
Court No. 21-00624                                                                               Page 15

        Although perhaps of little interest to the parties, as the tariff does not differ, the court must

select the proper classification, here at the eight-digit level.23        See GRI 6, HTSUS.          The

Government agrees that the subject merchandise is excluded from heading 4910.00, HTSUS, by

the EN and should be classified within heading 4820, HTSUS, but argues that the subject

merchandise should be classified within subheading 4820.10.40.00, HTSUS, “[o]ther” paper

products. Gov. MSJ at 2. Here, in order to classify this subject merchandise as “[o]ther,” the court

would have to decide that this subject merchandise is not, in fact, a diary. The Government based

its argument for the “[o]ther” classification on a prior ruling from the Federal Circuit, where a day

planner had been classified as subheading 4820.10.40.00, HTSUS, “[o]ther.” See Mead, 283 F.3d

at 1349; Blue Sky MSJ at Ex. 2, 42:12 to 43:7; Gov. MSJ at 23. There, however, the subject

merchandise at issue had many different components—it was

        a calendar, a section for daily notes, a section for telephone numbers and addresses,
        and a notepad . . . with additional items such as a daily planner section, plastic ruler,
        plastic pouch, credit card holder, and computer diskette holder. A loose-leaf ringed
        binder holds the contents of the day planner, except for the notepad, which fits into
        the rear flap of the day planner's outer cover.

Mead, 283 F.3d at 1344. In that case, the court found that the items in question were neither diaries

nor bound, which required classification as “[o]ther.” See id. at 1350. Unlike in Mead, the

notebooks here are clearly bound, and there is very little in them besides date pages for scheduling

23
   This classification dispute is past the six-digit level, but the meaning of the HS is still instructive
at this level because the terms broken out at the eight-digit level come from the six-digit level of
the HTSUS. For example, subheading 4820.10, HTSUS, which reads “[r]egisters, account books,
notebooks, order books, receipt books, letter pads, memorandum pads, diaries and similar articles,”
narrows to become subheading 4820.10.20, HTSUS, “[d]iaries, notebooks and address books,
bound; memorandum pads, letter pads and similar articles.” Here, the dispute is between
subheading 4820.10.20.10, HTSUS, “[d]iaries and address books” or subheading 4820.10.40.00,
HTSUS, “[o]ther.” As the subheadings are merely more narrow divisions of tariff terms used at
the six-digit level, it would be illogical to argue that “diary” should mean one thing at the six-digit
level, and another at the eight-digit level, without some evidence of a Congressional intent to
redefine the term.
Court No. 21-00624                                                                            Page 16

purposes.24 What little additional content there is supports the scheduling function; a few pages

for notes, a page for goals, and a page for contacts. As the products at issue are diaries, the correct

classification is 4820.10.20.10, HTSUS. Accordingly, the Government’s asserted basket

provision, “[o]ther,” is rejected.

        The obligation of the court, in interpreting the HTSUS, is to ensure that U.S. law reflects

“the nomenclature established internationally by the Convention,” see 19 U.S.C. § 3001, unless

altered by Congress. Reviewing the HS, the SH, multiple English and French definitions, and the

24
   Given the lack of discussion of the HS and the ENs in Mead the court need not rely on the
narrow definition used there. In Mead, the court was asked by the parties to determine whether
the subject merchandise then before it met the definition of diary as the court and parties
understood it from pre-HTSUS caselaw. See Mead, 283 F.3d at 1346Ѹsee also, e.g., Baumgarten
v. United States, 49 Cust. Ct. 275 (1962). The subject merchandise now before the court is
different from the subject merchandise that was before the court in Mead. Further, in Mead no
party raised the argument that the subject merchandise in that case was a calendar. See Mead, 283
F.3d at 1347 (“Neither party in this case would classify the day planners as calendars.”). Because
the parties did not raise this issue before the Mead court, the Mead court was not called upon to
examine the EN associated with heading 4910, HTSUS. See, e.g., Gerson Co. v. United States,
254 F. Supp. 3d 1271, 1277 (CIT 2017), aff’d, 898 F.3d 1232 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Here, because of
the arguments of the parties in this case, the court was required to analyze the ENs and finds that
the EN for heading 4910, HTSUS, not raised in Mead, clarifies the meaning of “diary” within
heading 4820, HTSUS. The EN for heading 4910, HTSUS excludes “diaries (including so-called
engagement calendars).” EN 49.10. An engagement calendar is not defined by the Oxford English
Dictionary, and it appears to primarily be an American English term meaning “an appointment
book for the daily recording of social engagements and other appointments.” Engagement
Calendar,             Collins             Dictionary,            https://www.collinsdictionary.com
/us/dictionary/english/engagement-calendar (last visited Mar. 18, 2024); see also Engagement
Calendar, Dictionary.com, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/engagement-calendar (last visited
Mar. 18, 2024) (“[A]n appointment book for the daily recording of social engagements and other
appointments”). As previously covered, in British English, a diary may be “a book in which you
write things that you must remember to do.” See supra at n.17. Thus, the terms “diary” and
“engagement calendar” appear to be synonyms, one term in British English, and the other
American English, both meaning a notebook used for scheduling purposes. The EN’s explanation
that its exclusion of diaries includes “so-called engagement calendars” confirms that the word
diary within the HTSUS is intended to capture both the retrospective definition of a diary and the
prospective definition. A diary may, as the Federal Circuit correctly identified, be a document for
the retrospective record of events; but, reading the broader British definition and utilizing the ENs
for guidance, today it is also “a book in which you write things that you must remember to do.” 
Court No. 21-00624                                                                      Page 17

ENs, the court finds that “diary” includes “a book in which you write things that you must

remember to do,” and this particular subject merchandise is a “diary” as the term is used in the

HTSUS. Customs’ classification of this product under subheading 4820.10.40.00, HTSUS was

incorrect and the subject merchandise should instead be classified as subheading 4820.10.20.10,

HTSUS.

                                        CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, the court grants in part Blue Sky’s motion for summary

judgment, denies Government’s motion for summary judgment, and holds that the Government

improperly classified the subject merchandise under subheading 4820.10.40.00, HTSUS. The

subject merchandise is properly classified as “diaries” under subheading 4820.10.20.10, HTSUS.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

                                                                  /s/ Jane A. Restani
                                                                   Jane A. Restani, Judge

Dated: April 10, 2024
       New York, New York