Blue Sky the Color of Imagination, LLC v. United States

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
BLUE SKY THE COLOR OF IMAGINATION, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1710
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of International
Trade in No. 1:21-cv-00624-JAR, Senior Judge Jane A. Re-
stani.
______________________
Decided: December 4, 2025
______________________
CHRISTOPHER J. D UNCAN, Squire Patton Boggs LLP,
Los Angeles, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also rep-
resented by ELON ABRAM P OLLACK, Stein Shostak Shostak
Pollack & O'Hara, LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
MONICA P ERRETTE T RIANA , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, New York, NY, argued for defendant-appellee. Also
represented by AIMEE L EE , P ATRICIA M. MC CARTHY , J USTIN
REINHART MILLER, BRETT SHUMATE.
______________________
Case: 24-1710 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 12/04/2025

-- 1 of 11 --

BLUE SKY THE COLOR OF IMAGINATION, LLC v. US 2
Before L OURIE, BRYSON, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
CHEN, Circuit Judge.
Blue Sky The Color of Imagination, LLC (Blue Sky) ap-
peals from a final decision by the Court of International
Trade (the Trade Court), which sua sponte classified Blue
Sky’s imported product as a “diary” under subheading
4820.10.20.10 within the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of
the United States (HTSUS). See Blue Sky Color of Imagi-
nation, LLC v. United States, 698 F. Supp. 3d 1243, 1245
(Ct. Int’l Trade 2024) (Decision). Blue Sky, on appeal, con-
tends that its imported product should be classified as a
“calendar” under Heading 4910 of the HTSUS. Because
the Trade Court’s interpretation of “diary” conflicts with
how we interpreted the term in Mead Corp. v. United
States, 283 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2002), we reverse and re-
mand.
BACKGROUND
I
Blue Sky imports paper products. One of its product
lines—which Blue Sky labels a “weekly/monthly planning
calendar” but the Government labels a “planner”—contains
several pages bound together by a spiral. Some pages in
the product depict a traditional monthly calendar (monthly
view):
Case: 24-1710 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 12/04/2025

-- 2 of 11 --

BLUE SKY THE COLOR OF IMAGINATION, LLC v. US 3
J.A. 472–73. Other pages break down each individual week
into the seven days (weekly view):
J.A. 476–77.
II
The HTSUS establishes tariff rates for various im-
ported goods. It categorizes the products into headings,
and each heading contains increasingly specific subhead-
ings. Wilton Indus., Inc. v. United States, 741 F.3d 1263,
1266 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The HTSUS “shall be considered to
Case: 24-1710 Document: 40 Page: 3 Filed: 12/04/2025

-- 3 of 11 --

BLUE SKY THE COLOR OF IMAGINATION, LLC v. US 4
be statutory provisions of law for all purposes.” 19 U.S.C.
§ 3004(c)(1).
Heading 4820, HTSUS (2020), the first heading rele-
vant for this appeal, classifies products as follows:
4820.00: Registers, account books, notebooks, or-
der 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 pa-
per or paperboard; albums for samples or for collec-
tions and book covers (including cover boards and
book jackets) of paper or paperboard:
4820.10.00: Registers, account books,
notebooks, order books, receipt books, let-
ter pads, memorandum pads, diaries and
similar articles:
4820.10.20.00: Diaries, notebooks
and address books, bound; memo-
randum pads, letter pads and simi-
lar articles
4820.10.20.10: Diaries and ad-
dress books
. . .
4820.10.20.60: Other
4820.10.40.00: Other
Heading 4910, HTSUS (2020), the other relevant heading,
classifies products as follows:
4910.00: Calendars of any kind, printed, including
calendar blocks: Printed on paper or paperboard in
whole or in part by a lithographic process:
Case: 24-1710 Document: 40 Page: 4 Filed: 12/04/2025

-- 4 of 11 --

BLUE SKY THE COLOR OF IMAGINATION, LLC v. US 5
4910.00.20.00: Not over 0.51 mm in thick-
ness . . .
4910.00.40.00: Over 0.51 mm in thickness
4910.00.60.00: Other
III
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) classified Blue
Sky’s product as “[o]ther” under subheading 4820.10.40.00.
Decision, 698 F. Supp. 3d at 1249–50. Blue Sky timely pro-
tested that classification, but CBP denied review. Blue Sky
then filed a complaint in the Trade Court, arguing that its
product qualifies as a “calendar” under heading 4910; the
Government, in response, maintained its classification of
“[o]ther” under subheading 4820.10.40.00. Id. at 1251–52.
The Trade Court granted summary judgment, rejecting
both classifications. It understood that Blue Sky’s product
“is ‘used to note future appointments,’” but reasoned the
term “diary” encompasses such prospective tools (used for
planning ahead). Id. at 1245 (citation omitted); see id. at
1253 (“[D]iaries are both retrospective journals, and pro-
spective scheduling devices.”). The Trade Court accord-
ingly chose to strike its own path and classified Blue Sky’s
product as a “diary” under HTSUS subheading
4820.10.20.10. Id. at 1255.
In so holding, the Trade Court acknowledged that this
court already limited the term “diary” to cover products
only geared toward retrospective reflection—as opposed to
prospective scheduling—over 20 years ago. See id. at 1254
& n.24 (discussing Mead, 283 F.3d at 1342); see Mead, 283
F.3d at 1348. But the Trade Court nevertheless believed
that it “need not rely on the narrow definition used” in
Mead where those products were not bound. Decision, 698
F. Supp. 3d at 1254 n.24. The Trade Court thus departed
from Mead because the products here are bound, with just
some pages for scheduling, a few pages for notes, a page for
goals, and a page for contacts.
Case: 24-1710 Document: 40 Page: 5 Filed: 12/04/2025

-- 5 of 11 --

BLUE SKY THE COLOR OF IMAGINATION, LLC v. US 6
Blue Sky appeals, and we have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1295(a)(5).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the Trade Court’s grant of summary judg-
ment regarding a tariff classification without deference.
Deckers Corp. v. United States, 752 F.3d 949, 954 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (citing CamelBak Prods., LLC v. United States, 649
F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). Further, because no ma-
terial facts are disputed here, our inquiry of classifying
products “collapses into a determination of the proper
meaning and scope of the HTSUS terms,” a determination
that is “a matter of statutory construction [that] is a ques-
tion of law” and that we review de novo. Len-Ron Manu-
facturing Co. v. United States, 334 F.3d 1304, 1308 (Fed.
Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and citations omitted) (em-
phasis removed).
Classification of imports under the HTSUS requires
two steps. “First, the trial court must construe the mean-
ing of terms in a given tariff provision.” Id. (citing Orlando
Food Corp. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1437, 1439 (Fed. Cir.
1998)). “Second, the trial court must determine if the mer-
chandise at issue falls within the tariff provision that the
court just construed.” Id. (citing Orlando, 140 F.3d at
1439). The former presents a question of law, which we
review de novo, while the latter raises a question of fact,
which we review for clear error. Id.
D ISCUSSION
“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis is of fundamental im-
portance to the rule of law.” Hilton v. S.C. Pub. Rys.
Comm’n, 502 U.S. 197, 202 (1991) (citing Welch v. Tex.
Dep’t of Highways & Pub. Transp., 483 U.S. 468, 494
(1987)). It “binds courts to follow their own earlier deci-
sions or the decisions of a superior tribunal.” Nat’l Org. of
Veterans’ Advocs., Inc. v. Sec’y of Veterans Affs., 260 F.3d
1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The doctrine “makes each
Case: 24-1710 Document: 40 Page: 6 Filed: 12/04/2025

-- 6 of 11 --

BLUE SKY THE COLOR OF IMAGINATION, LLC v. US 7
judgment a statement of the law, or precedent, binding in
future cases before the same court or another court owing
obedience to its decision.” Mendenhall v. Cedarapids, Inc.,
5 F.3d 1557, 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).
Blue Sky believes that the Trade Court ran afoul of this
bedrock principle by adopting a definition of “diary” di-
rectly at odds with the definition of “diary” set forth in
Mead. We agree.
I
Mead, a precedential decision issued from our court
upon remand from the Supreme Court, evaluated whether
CBP correctly classified the merchandise-at-issue as a “di-
ary” within subheading 4820.10.20. See 283 F.3d at 1346–
48. In resolving that question, however, we first construed
the metes and bounds of the term. See id. at 1347–48. Spe-
cifically, we determined:
In addition, a diary is a “record” in the sense that
it “recalls or relates past events.” A diarist records
events, observations, feelings, or thoughts after
they happen. A diary is retrospective, not prospec-
tive. A diary is not a place to jot down the date and
time of a distant dentist appointment, regardless of
whether that appointment would constitute an
“event of importance.”
Id. at 1348 (second emphasis added) (citation omitted).
That language did not represent mere dictum; we relied on
it for our final holding. See id. (“Applying these aspects of
the definition of a diary, the imports are articles similar to
diaries (encompassed by ‘other’ in subheading 4820.10.40),
rather than diaries themselves under subheading
4820.10.20.”).
II
Stare decisis commands respect for a past interpreta-
tion of a tariff classification term—just as it would for a
Case: 24-1710 Document: 40 Page: 7 Filed: 12/04/2025

-- 7 of 11 --

BLUE SKY THE COLOR OF IMAGINATION, LLC v. US 8
prior interpretation of any other statutory phrase. Deckers,
752 F.3d at 966 (“[B]oth the Court of International Trade
and any subsequent panel of this court are bound by the
earlier panel’s classification construction.”); see also
Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. United States, 845 F.3d 1158,
1163 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The HTSUS ‘shall be considered to
be statutory provisions of law for all purposes.’” (quoting 19
U.S.C. § 3004(c)(1)); Neal v. United States, 516 U.S. 284,
295 (1996) (“Once we have determined a statute’s meaning,
we adhere to our ruling under the doctrine of stare decisis”).
Mead’s interpretation of “diary” thus controls. And be-
cause Mead held that “[a] diary is retrospective, not pro-
spective,” whereas the Trade Court found that Blue Sky’s
product “is ‘used to note future appointments,’” the Trade
Court should not have classified Blue Sky’s product as a
diary. Mead, 283 F.3d at 1348; Decision, 698 F. Supp. 3d
at 1245 (emphasis added). It thus erred by doing so.
The Trade Court saw things differently. In its view,
because Mead relied on pre-HTSUS caselaw and did not
engage with the relevant Explanatory Notes,1 it “need not
rely on the narrow definition used” in Mead. Decision, 698
F. Supp. 3d at 1254 n.24. Moreover, the Trade Court de-
termined that Mead is inapposite because “[t]he subject
merchandise now before the court is different from the sub-
ject merchandise that was before the court in Mead.” Id.
1 Explanatory Notes, issued by the World Customs
Organization, provide non-binding guidance for interpret-
ing a tariff classification term. See Marubeni Am. Corp. v.
United States, 35 F.3d 530, 535 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Ex-
planatory Notes are only instructive and are not dispositive
or binding.”); Shamrock Building Materials, Inc. v. United
States, 119 F.4th 1346, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2024) (using Ex-
planatory Notes to “help resolve an interpretive dispute”).
Case: 24-1710 Document: 40 Page: 8 Filed: 12/04/2025

-- 8 of 11 --

BLUE SKY THE COLOR OF IMAGINATION, LLC v. US 9
Mead, however, never restricted its construction of “di-
ary” to the particular merchandise presented. See gener-
ally 298 F.3d 1342. Nor would it make any sense to do so,
as the metes and bounds of a tariff term—a question of
law—does not turn upon the factual intricacies of the dis-
puted merchandise.2 See Deckers, 752 F.3d at 954 (requir-
ing courts to first construe the meaning of a term, before
then examining the disputed products). On the meaning of
“diary,” Mead was clear: “[a] diary is retrospective, not pro-
spective.” Mead, 298 F.3d at 1348.
Mead, moreover, never relied on the vitality of pre-
HTSUS caselaw for its holding;3 Mead interpreted the very
same term in the very same provision at issue today: “di-
ary” within subheading 4820.10.20 of the HTSUS. See id.
And to the extent the Trade Court found Mead’s analysis
of “diary” incomplete or otherwise lacking (say, because it
never considered various explanatory notes), the Trade
Court had no liberty to make that judgment call for itself.
See Mendenhall, 5 F.3d at 1570.
The Trade Court thus erred by expansively interpret-
ing “diary” to include “prospective scheduling devices,” and
accordingly misclassified Blue Sky’s planner as a “diary”
under subheading 4820.10.20.10. This error also tainted
its analysis of “calendar” within heading 4910—Blue Sky’s
2 Of course, a court need not resolve a particular nu-
ance in the construction of a tariff term if the nature of the
disputed merchandise does not implicate that subtlety.
But once a higher court establishes a particular meaning,
that construction constitutes established law. See Deckers,
752 F.3d at 966.
3 The Mead court, recognizing the HTSUS estab-
lished a more precise classification scheme than the pre-
existing scheme, observed that it “must [now] define and
differentiate diaries with a finer point than those earlier
[pre-HTSUS] cases.” Mead, 298 F.3d at 1348.
Case: 24-1710 Document: 40 Page: 9 Filed: 12/04/2025

-- 9 of 11 --

BLUE SKY THE COLOR OF IMAGINATION, LLC v. US 10
preferred classification—and its analysis of “[o]ther”
within subheading 4820.10.40.00—the Government’s pre-
ferred classification. See Decision, 698 F. Supp. 3d at 1253
(“The subject merchandise therefore appears to the court
to be diaries, and thus properly excluded from heading
4910 . . . .”); id. at 1254–55 (“As the products at issue are
diaries, the correct classification is 4820.10.20.10, HTSUS.
Accordingly, the Government’s asserted basket provision,
“other,” is rejected.” (alteration omitted)). We therefore re-
verse the Trade Court’s decision.
III
The Government, on appeal, offers some seemingly per-
suasive arguments for why Blue Sky’s product falls within
the heading 4820, as opposed to heading 4910. For one,
items enumerated within heading 4820 describe stationery
items for recording various types of information—many of
them with pre-defined templates allowing users to write
down information, much like Blue Sky’s product. For an-
other, Explanatory Note 48.20 explains that heading 4820
“includes . . . engagement books,” whereas Explanatory
Note 49.10 indicates that “heading [4910] excludes . . . so-
called engagement calendars.”). Explanatory Note 48.20;
Explanatory Note 49.10.
Nevertheless, we find it more prudent for the Trade
Court to consider those arguments in the first instance on
remand.4
4 We note that Heading 4820 includes two classifica-
tions of “other,” one as 4820.10.40.00 (as the Government
originally contended applies to the subject merchandise in
this case) and the other as 4820.10.20.60. Many of the Gov-
ernment’s argument seem equally, if not more, applicable
to the latter.
Case: 24-1710 Document: 40 Page: 10 Filed: 12/04/2025

-- 10 of 11 --

BLUE SKY THE COLOR OF IMAGINATION, LLC v. US 11
CONCLUSION
We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
but find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
reverse the Trade Court’s decision and remand for further
proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1710 Document: 40 Page: 11 Filed: 12/04/2025

-- 11 of 11 --