CAFC Rules Planning Calendar Classification Already Decided

Dec. 12, 2025
By: Austin J. Eighan

On December 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held that the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) violated stare decisis by classifying planning calendars as “diaries” under Subheading 4820.10.2010 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. “Stare decisis” literally means “to stand by things decided” and is the legal doctrine used in common law countries for past cases to decide future issue.

In Blue Sky the Color of Imagination, LLC v. United States, the dispute centered on the importer’s “weekly/monthly planning calendars,” which feature several spiral-bound pages consisting of traditional monthly grids and weekly breakdowns (pictured here).

U.S. Customs and Border Protection classified the merchandise as a planner under Subheading 4820.10.4000, which provides for “other” registers, account books, notebooks, and the like. The importer challenged that determination and sought classification under Subheading 4910.00.6000 as a “calendar.”

After examining the merchandise, the CIT characterized it as “a series of notebooks in which you write things that you must remember to do” and is used “to note future appointments.” The Court reasoned that “diaries are both retrospective journals, and prospective scheduling devices.” As a result, the CIT took a different path and, on its own initiative (sua sponte, since we’re using Latin today), classified the merchandise as a “diary” under Subheading 4820.10.2010.

The CAFC rejected the CIT’s approach and reaffirmed the Circuit’s earlier analysis in Mead Corp. v. United States (2002). In Mead, the Federal Circuit defined “diary” as a retrospective record “in the sense that it recalls or relates past events,” not a tool for logging the date and time of future commitments. The CAFC emphasized that Mead drew clear boundaries around the meaning of “diary.” Because the judicial principal of stare decisis requires lower courts to follow prior constructions of tariff terms by the appellate court, the CAFC concluded that the CIT erred when it broadened the definition to include planning calendars.

While the CAFC did not ultimately classify the merchandise, it reversed and remanded the CIT’s decision for further proceedings to determine which classification most accurately describes the goods. If your company would like to review the tariff classifications for its merchandise, or a discussion about the use of Latin phrases, inter alia, in the law, please reach out to one of our attorneys at Barnes, Richardson & Colburn.