Full opinion text
OPINION RIDGWAY, Judge. At stake in this action is the tariff classification of more than 280 articles imported by plaintiff Wilton Industries, Inc. — including cake toppers, as well as wedding cake figurine/topper bases, separator plates, pillars, columns, plate legs, and plate pegs; wedding cake fresh flower holders, inserts, and bowls; place card holders; various models and styles of bakeware; cookie cutters and cookie stamps; cake picks; and cake presses and cooking tools. The merchandise was imported from the People’s Republic of China through the Port of Chicago between May 5, 1999 and July 22, 1999. All entries were liquidated between March 17, 2000 and June 2, 2000. Over the course of litigation, the parties have reached agreement on the classification of 123 articles. See Stipulation (Oct. 16, 2002). In addition, Wilton has abandoned its claims as to another 15 articles. See Plaintiffs Amended Statement of Material Facts As To Which No Genuine Issue Exists ¶¶ 2-6. Now pending before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment as to the 158 articles still at issue. Wilton contends that all remaining merchandise is properly classifiable as “festive articles” under heading 9505 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”), duty-free. See generally Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s Brief’); Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“Pl.’s Reply Brief’); Supplement to Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“Pl.’s Supp. Brief’); Plaintiffs Response to Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum (“Pl.’s Supp. Reply Brief’). According to the Government, however, the U.S. Customs Service properly classified the remaining merchandise under HTSUS heading 3924, heading 3926, heading 7615, or heading 7323 (depending on the item at issue), liquidating it at rates of duty ranging from 3.1% to 6.5% ad valo-rem. See generally Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“Def.’s Brief’); Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“Def.’s Reply Brief’); Defendant’s Supplemental Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and In Support of Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (“Def.’s Supp. Brief’); Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiffs Supplement to Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“Def.’s Supp. Reply Brief’). For the reasons set forth below, both Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment are granted in part and denied in part. I. Background, On its website — an online paradise for the aspiring Martha Stewarts of the world — plaintiff Wilton Industries, Inc. promotes itself as “the number one preferred brand name in baking and cake decorating products for over 50 years.” Wilton is both a retailer (selling directly to the public, through its Online Store and its catalog, the “Yearbook of Cake Decorating”) and a wholesaler (selling to general merchandise and specialty stores, such as Target, Wal-Mart, and Michael’s). Wilton sells the imported merchandise at issue (described in greater detail below) as seasonal goods, and as goods associated with certain special occasions. All of the merchandise is imported and sold only in conjunction with holidays or other special occasions. Many of the items are marketed in connection with a particular holiday — such as Christmas, Valentine’s Day, or Halloween — and are designed and intended specifically for use in celebration of that holiday. Other goods are marketed for so-called “private festive occasions,” such as birthdays, or weddings and anniversaries, and are similarly designed and intended specifically for use on such an occasion. The merchandise that Wilton sells in connection with a holiday (such as Christmas, Valentine’s Day, or Halloween) is advertised and marketed in the appropriate section of the “Seasonal Shop” of Wilton’s Online Store (e.g., the Christmas, Valentine’s Day, or Halloween section), and in the appropriate section of Wilton’s Yearbook catalog (e.g., the Christmas, Valentine’s Day, or Halloween section). In stores such as Target, Wal-Mart, and Michael’s, such holiday merchandise is displayed and sold in the seasonal section or festive products section of the store. The stores display the holiday merchandise only in the weeks immediately preceding the holiday with which the merchandise is associated. Thus, for example, shoppers will not find Christmas tree cookie cutters or Santa-shaped baking pans on display in stores in the summer months. Nor does Wilton offer such merchandise in its Online Store or its Yearbook catalog, except in the .Christmas sections. In Wilton’s Online Store, in its Yearbook catalog, and in the retail stores that carry Wilton’s merchandise (e.g., Target, Wal-Mart, and Michael’s), Wilton’s holiday-specific merchandise is displayed and marketed alongside other holiday merchandise, including festive cookware, kitchenware, and bake-ware (such as Halloween cookie jars, Christmas dinnerware, or Valentine’s Day mugs, depending on the holiday season). Merchandise like the non-holiday merchandise at issue — wedding and anniversary merchandise, and birthday and other non-holiday bakeware, for example — is advertised and marketed in the “Wedding Shop,” the “Theme & Character Shop,” or the “Novelty Shaped Pans” section of the “Bakeware Shop” of Wilton’s Online Store, and in the “Wedding,” “Famous Characters,” or “Novelty Pans” section of Wilton’s Yearbook catalog (as appropriate). Stores such as Target, Wal-Mart, and Michael’s display such merchandise year-round in the “wedding” and/or the “birthday” or “party goods” sections of their stores (as appropriate). As described in greater detail below, the remaining merchandise at issue includes various styles of wedding cake separator plates, pillars and columns, and plate legs; Cherub Place Card Holders; several dozen different items of bakeware, as well as cookie cutters and cookie stamps; and certain cake press sets. A. The Merchandise At Issue Wedding Cake Separator Plates, Pillars/Columns, and Plate Legs. The wedding merchandise remaining at issue consists of wedding cake “separator plates,” pillars and columns, and separator plate “legs.” All of the items are made of plastic, and are designed to be used together to separate the tiers of a multi-tiered wedding cake, to enhance the cake’s appearance and appeal at wedding celebrations. Separator plates support each of the tiers of a multi-tiered wedding cake. The separator plates are typically round (ranging from six to eighteen inches in diameter), but also come in other shapes, including square, hexagon, oval, and heart-shaped. A separator plate can be converted to a “base plate” (used to support the bottom tier of a cake, generally the largest of the tiers) by the addition of one-inch plate “legs.” Plate “pegs” — which are no longer at issue in this action — are used to anchor the cake tiers themselves to the separator plates, and to prevent the tiers of the cake from slipping off the separator plates when the cake is cut. The coordinating pillars and columns range from three to eleven inches tall, and are designed to snap onto the undersides of the separator plates, to separate and support each tier of the wedding cake. Because they are visible parts of a tiered wedding cake as it is presented, items such as separator plates, pillars and columns, and plate legs must be not only strong, but also aesthetically pleasing. Thus, descriptions of the items emphasize their beauty, as well as their strength and their stability. And, while the separator plates, pillars and columns, and plate legs are actually made of plastic (and thus are inexpensive enough to be disposable), they are designed to look like they are made from finely-cut crystal and other expensive materials. They are also sold in several different styles (some elegantly simple and others more ornate, some traditional and others more modern), to coordinate with one another, and to appeal to the differing personal tastes of bridal couples by enhancing whatever overall look they are seeking to create with their wedding cake. Although Wilton claims that the merchandise is properly classifiable as “festive articles” under HTSUS heading 9505, Customs liquidated the wedding cake separator plates, pillars, and columns as “Tableware, kitchenware, other household articles and toilet articles, of plastics: Tableware and kitchenware: Plates, cups, saucers, soup bowls, cereal bowls, sugar bowls, creamers, gravy boats, serving dishes and platters” and “Tableware, kitchenware, other household articles and toilet articles, of plastics: Tableware and kitchenware: Other,” under subheadings 3924.10.20 and 3924.10.50, respectively. The plate legs were liquidated as “Other articles of plastics ...: Othér: Other,” under subheading 3926.90.98. Cherub Place Card Holders. Wilton’s Cherub Place Card Holders are classic, bisque white cherub figurines (approximately three-and-one-half inches tall), designed for use at wedding receptions to hold place cards designating guests’ seating assignments or guests’ places at their tables, and to coordinate with other stylistic and design elements of the nuptial celebration. Like the other wedding merchandise discussed above, the place card holders are made of plastic, so as to be inexpensive enough to be disposable. Wilton contends that the Cherub Place Card Holders are properly classifiable as “festive articles” under HTSUS heading 9505. However, Customs liquidated them under subheadings 3924.10.20 and 3926.90.98, as “Tableware, kitchenware, other household articles and toilet articles, of plastics: Table and kitchenware: Plates, cups, saucers, soup bowls, cereal bowls, sugar bowls, creamers, gravy boats, serving dishes and platters” and “Other articles of plastics ...: Other: Other,” respectively. Cake Press Sets. Cake presses are used to stamp or imprint special designs, messages, or greetings onto frosted cakes. Typically, contrasting frosting or other edible material is then piped onto the design or lettering, to further highlight it. The cake press sets at issue here feature greetings and sentiments such as “Merry Christmas,” “Happy New Year,” and “Congratulations,” as well as presses of individual words to be used in combination to form messages and greetings, such as “Best” and “Wishes.” The cake presses are made of plastic, and thus are inexpensive enough to be disposable. Although Wilton claims that the cake press sets are properly classifiable as “festive articles” under HTSUS heading 9505, Customs liquidated them under Chapter 39, “Plastics and Articles Thereof.” Bakeware, Cookie Cutters, and Cookie Stamps. The bakeware at issue consists of baking pans which are made of aluminum (except for one pan), cookie cutters made of plastic (or, in one instance, stainless steel), and plastic cookie stamps. With holiday baking a tradition in many households, Wilton’s line of bakeware predictably includes pans marketed for specific holidays (including pans in shapes such as Santa, a snowman, a heart, and a jack-o-lantern), as well as pans in a wide range of other shapes (including, inter alia, a dinosaur, a football, a sports utility vehicle, and a horseshoe, as well as characters and themes with special appeal for children, such as Blue’s Clues and Barbie). In addition to their special shapes, a number of the pans also feature designs in “relief’ or raised designs which are molded into the pans themselves. The baking pans can be filled with cake batter (or, in a few instances, cookie dough or pie crust dough), and placed in the oven. When removed from the pan after baking, the cake or other treat takes the special shape of the pan, and may or may not be further decorated. Like its baking pans, Wilton’s cookie cutters are in assorted shapes such as Santa, a gingerbread man, a snowflake, a jack-o-lantern, a ghost, and a heart. The cookie cutters can be pressed down on cookie dough, producing “cut-outs” that— after baking — yield cookies in the shapes of the cutters. The resulting cookies may or may not be further decorated. Wilton’s cookie stamps also feature a variety of designs and motifs such as a Christmas tree, a gingerbread man, and a jack-o-lantern. When a cookie stamp is pressed onto cookie dough, it “stamps” the dough with an imprint of a design or motif. The design or motif is then baked into the cookie itself. As with cookies produced using cookie cutters, cookies featuring stamped designs or motifs may or may not be further decorated after baking. Over Wilton’s objections, Customs liquidated the bakeware as “Table, kitchen or other household articles ..., of aluminum; ...: Table, kitchen or other household articles ...: Other: Cooking and kitchen ware: Not enameled or glazed and not containing nonstick interior finishes: Other” under subheading 7615.19.70, except for one pan, which was liquidated as “Table, kitchen or other household articles ..., of iron or steel; ...: Other: Other: Not coated or plated with precious metal: Other: Cookingware” under subheading 7323.99.70. The cookie cutters and cookie stamps were liquidated as “Tableware, kitchenware, other household articles and toilet articles, of plastics: Tableware and kitchenware: Other,” under subheading 3924.10.50 (with the exception of one material cookie cutter, which was liquidated as “Table, kitchen or other household articles ..., of iron or steel; ...: Other: Of stainless steel,” under subheading 7323.93.00). Wilton contends that all the merchandise is properly classifiable as “festive articles” under HTSUS heading 9505. B. “Festive Articles” Under Heading 9505 As discussed above, the Government maintains that Customs properly classified the merchandise at issue under various subheadings of HTSUS headings 3924, 3926, 7615, and 7323. However, relevant Section and Chapter Notes specifically and expressly exclude merchandise from classification under those headings if — as Wilton contends — the merchandise is classifiable under heading 9505. See Section Note 1(1) (excluding from classification under Section XV — including, inter alia, headings under Chapters 73 and 76 — “[a]rticles of chapter 95”), Section XV (“Base Metals and Articles of Base Metals”), HTSUS; Chapter Note 2(v) (excluding from classification under headings under Chapter 39 “[a]rticles of chapter 95”), Chapter 39 (“Plastics and Articles Thereof’), HTSUS; see also Midwest of Cannon Falls, Inc. v. United States, 122 F.3d 1423, 1429 (Fed.Cir.1997) (discussing application of similar exclusionary Chapter Note, in “festive articles” case); Park B. Smith, Ltd. v. United States, 347 F.3d 922, 926, 928 (Fed.Cir.2003) (discussing application of similar exclusionary Section Note, in “festive articles” case). Accordingly, if the merchandise at issue is classifiable under HTSUS heading 9505, the merchandise cannot be classified as Customs liquidated it. In its entirety, the text of HTSUS heading 9505 — including its subheadings— reads: 9505 Festive, carnival or other entertainment articles, including magic tricks and practical joke ' articles; parts and accessories thereof: 9505.10 Articles for Christmas festivities and parts and accessories thereof: Christmas ornaments: 9505.10.10 Of glass Other: 9505.10.15 Of wood 9505.10.25 Other 9505.10.30 Nativity scenes and figures thereof Other: 9505.10.40 Of plastics Artificial Christmas trees Other 9505.10.50 Other Artificial Christmas trees Other 9505.90 Other: 9505.90.20 Magic tricks and practical joke articles; parts and accessories thereof 9505.90.40 Confetti, paper spirals or streamers, party favors and noisemakers; parts and accessories, thereof 9505.90.60 Other See Heading 9505, HTSUS. The Explanatory Notes to heading 9505, in turn, further provide: 95.05 — FESTIVE, CARNIVAL OR OTHER ENTERTAINMENT ARTICLES, INCLUDING CONJURING TRICKS AND NOVELTY JOKES 9505.10 — Articles for Christmas festivities 9505.90 — Other This heading covers: (A) Festive, carnival or other entertainment articles, which in view of their intended use are generally made of non-durable material. They include: (1) Decorations such as festoons, garlands, Chinese lanterns, etc., as well as various decorative articles made of paper, metal foil, glass fibre, etc., for Christmas trees (e.g., tinsel, stars, icicles), artificial snow, col-oured balls, bells, lanterns, etc. Cake and other decorations (e.g., animals, flags) which are traditionally associated with a particular festival are also classified here. (2) Articles traditionally used at Christmas festivities, e.g., artificial Christmas trees (these are sometimes of the folding type), nativity scenes, Christmas crackers, Christmas stockings, imitation yule logs. (3) Articles of fancy dress, e.g., ' masks, false ears and noses, wigs, false beards and moustaches (not being articles of postiche — heading 67.04), and paper hats. However, the heading excludes fancy dress of textile materials, of Chapter 61 or 62. (4) Throw-balls of paper or cotton-wool, paper streamers (carnival tape), cardboard trumpets, “blowouts”, confetti, carnival umbrellas, etc. The heading excludes statuettes, statues and the like of a kind used for decorating places of worship. (B) Conjuring tricks and novelty jokes, e.g., packs of cards, tables, screens and containers, specially designed for the performance of conjuring tricks; novelty jokes such as sneezing powder, surprise sweets, water-jet button-holes and “Japanese flowers”: This heading also excludes: (a) Natural Christmas trees (Chapter 6). (b) Christmas candles and Christmas tree candles (heading 34.06). (c) Paekagings of plastics or of paper, used during festivals (classified according to constituent material, for example, Chapter 39 or 48). (d) Christmas trees stands (classified according to constituent material). (e) Textile flags or bunting of heading 63.07. (f)Electric garlands of all kinds (heading 94.05). See Explanatory Notes, Heading 9505, HTSUS. II. The Standard of Review Under USCIT Rule 56, summary judgment is appropriate where “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to [ ] judgment as a matter of law.” USCIT R. 56(c). Customs’ classification decisions are reviewed through a two-step analysis— first construing the relevant tariff headings, then determining under which of those headings the merchandise at issue is properly classified. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. United States, 148 F.3d 1363, 1365 (Fed.Cir.1998) (citing Universal Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 112 F.3d 488, 491 (Fed.Cir.1997)). Interpretation of the relevant tariff headings is a question of law, while application of the terms to the merchandise is a question of fact. See Bausch & Lomb, 148 F.3d at 1365. Summary judgment is thus appropriate where the nature of the merchandise is not in question, and the sole issue is its proper classification. See id. (it is “clear that summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to the underlying factual issue of exactly what the merchandise is”) (citation omitted). On review, Customs’ classification decisions are afforded a measure of deference proportional to their power to persuade, in accordance with the principles set forth in Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944). See United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 235, 121 S.Ct. 2164, 150 L.Ed.2d 292 (2001); Mead Corp. v. United States, 283 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed.Cir.2002). According to the Government, Customs’ determination in the case at bar—denying “festive articles” classification to the merchandise in dispute—is entitled to the full measure of Skidmore deference. See generally Def.’s Brief at 4, 6-7; see also section III.D, infra. III. Analysis The law of “festive articles” has been crisply and succinctly articulated by the Court of Appeals. The challenge lies in the application of that law. The seminal case is Midwest of Cannon Falls, which established the basic criteria for classification of “festive articles” under heading 9505. See generally Midwest of Cannon Falls, Inc. v. United States, 122 F.3d 1423 (Fed.Cir.1997). As synthesized, and distilled in Park B. Smith, those criteria require both (1) that the article “be closely associated with a festive occasion,” and (2) that the article be “used or displayed principally during that festive occasion.” Park B. Smith, Ltd. v. United States, 347 F.3d 922, 927 (Fed.Cir.2003) (citing Midwest of Cannon Falls, 122 F.3d at 1429). If the use or display of the article at other times would not be “aberrant,” then the article does not satisfy the criteria. Park B. Smith, 347 F.3d at 929. See generally Russ Berrie & Co. v. United States, 381 F.3d 1334, 1336 (Fed.Cir.2004). Wilton contends that all the merchandise here at issue is classifiable as “festive articles” under heading 9505. The Government vigorously disputes Wilton’s claim, advancing several different arguments. The Government’s principal argument is a reprise of — and a variation on- — an argument that has been raised (and rejected) in prior “festive article” cases.' Specifically, the Government asserts that the “functional” or “utilitarian” nature of the subject merchandise precludes its classification as “festive articles” under heading 9505. In a related argument, the Government contends that the vast majority of the goods at issue are, at best, “one step removed” from “festive articles.” The Government further maintains that “festive” occasions for purposes of heading 9505 are limited to recognized “holidays,” so that merchandise related to occasions such as weddings, anniversaries, and birthdays cannot be classified under that heading. In addition, as to most — if not all — of the items in dispute, the Government contests Wilton’s claim that the articles’ motifs are “closely associated with” and/or that the articles themselves are “used or displayed principally during” a particular festive occasion. The parties’ respective claims and arguments are addressed in turn below. A. The Functional/Utilitarian Nature of the Subject Merchandise As the Government emphasizes, much of the subject merchandise can fairly be characterized as having a “functional”-or “utilitarian” purpose (at least to some degree). The bakeware, for example, is used to bake cakes in various special shapes. In the past, however, the Court of Appeals has twice squarely rejected the Government’s claim that only “non-utilitarian” merchandise is classifiable as “festive articles” under heading 9505. See Midwest of Cannon Falls, 122 F.3d at 1429; Park B. Smith, 347 F.3d at 927. The Government nevertheless resurrects the argument once again here, but with a new twist. See generally Def.’s Brief at 21-25; Def.’s Reply Brief at 4-6; Def.’s Supp. Brief at 11-14. But see Pl.’s Reply Brief at 4-11; Pl.’s Supp. Reply Brief at 3-4. Invoking Jewelpak, the Government asserts that — in determining the proper scope of heading 9505 — the court should consider the Explanatory Notes to heading 9505, which were amended in 2003 to expressly exclude from the scope of that heading articles that “have a utilitarian function,” such as “kitchenware.” See Def.’s Brief at 21 (citing Jewelpak Corp. v. United States, 20 CIT 1402, 950 F.Supp. 343 (1996), aff'd, 297 F.3d 1326, 1336 (Fed.Cir.2002)); Def.’s Reply Brief at 5-6; Explanatory Notes, Heading 9505, HTSUS, at xx-9505-1 (2007) (reflecting 2003 amendment). The plaintiff in Jewelpak complained, among other things, that Customs had changed the classification of the jewelry boxes there at issue based upon an amendment to the applicable Explanatory Notes. Jewelpak, 20 CIT at 1402, 950 F.Supp. at 345. The plaintiff maintained that, absent action by the International Trade Commission and the President to formally amend the HTSUS, Customs’ action was improper. Id. Finding that Customs was entitled to consider the amended Explanatory Notes, this court noted that “Congress recognized that the Explanatory Notes would be occasionally modified, and could still be ‘consulted for guidance.’” Jewelpak, 20 CIT at 1411, 950 F.Supp. at 351. The Court of Appeals affirmed: “[Djespite Jewelpak’s protestation, the law is clear that it was wholly appropriate to reference the Amended Explanatory Note ... to help define the proper scope of the tariff term.” Jewelpak, 297 F.3d at 1336 (citations omitted). But Jewelpak is inapposite. As Wilton emphasizes, the amendment to the Explanatory Notes at issue in Jewelpak came into force several years before the merchandise at issue in that case was imported. Jewel- pak thus had no occasion to address the issue of “retroactivity” (for lack of a better word) that is presented in this case. See Pl.’s Reply Brief at 4-5; Jewelpak, 297 F.3d at 1334 (emphasizing that, in that case, Customs’ revocation of its earlier rulings was expressly “limited to ... future importations; it did not apply retroactively to merchandise that already had been liquidated.”). In contrast, the amendment to the Explanatory Notes invoked by the Government here was not enacted, and did not become effective, until long after the merchandise at bar had been imported, and — indeed—several years after this action was filed. The Government emphasizes that the amendment to the Explanatory Notes to heading 9505 was a “clarifying” amendment, and asserts that some countries were excluding “utilitarian” articles from the scope of heading 9505 even before the Explanatory Notes were amended. See Def.’s Supp. Brief at 11-14; see also Def.’s Brief at 23; Def.’s Reply Brief at 5-6. The Government seeks to dismiss the issue of retroactivity as an “irrelevant factual distinction.” See Def.’s Reply Brief at 5. But that is much too cavalier. Even apart from the general legal principles governing the retroactive application of laws, however, there are reliance interests at stake here. Cf. Jewelpak, 297 F.3d at 1340 (dissent) (noting that “[t]he international trade community premises its actions and decisions on the expectation that Customs will conform to ... established and uniform practices,” and that “[t]he reliance and fairness interests of the international importing community are implicated by the practices in which Customs uniformly engages” — “regardless of whether the Secretary formally deems Customs’ practice established and uniform.”). Under the circumstances of this case, in importing the merchandise at issue, Wilton was entitled to rely on the existing state of the law of this land. Wilton was entitled to rely on the fact that, in Midwest of Cannon Falls, the Court of Appeals flatly and unambiguously rejected the argument that “utilitarian” goods could not be classified as “festive articles” under heading 9505. See Michael Simon Design, Inc. v. United States, 30 CIT -, -, 452 F.Supp.2d 1316, 1323-24 (2006), appeal docketed, No.2007-1028 (Fed.Cir. Oct. 26, 2006) (rejecting same argument by the Government; noting that “the amended EN 95.05 contradicts the Federal Circuit’s current interpretation of the scope of heading,” that Midwest of Cannon Falls and Park B. Smith “held, without qualification, that the term ‘festive articles’ includes utilitarian articles,” and that “the Federal Circuit’s current interpretation of the meaning of the term ‘festive articles’ controls”) (footnote and citation omitted). Contrary to the Government’s assertions, the amendment to the Explanatory Notes to heading 9505 excluding “utilitarian” articles has no relevance here. This action is controlled by the Court of Appeals’ decision in Midwest of Cannon Falls, as amplified by Park B. Smith. See Midwest of Cannon Falls, 122 F.3d 1423; Park B. Smith, 347 F.3d 922. That said, it is difficult not to be somewhat sympathetic to the frustration the Government has expressed. As the Government properly notes, the 2003 amendment to the Explanatory Notes (and other recent developments) suggest that the law of “festive articles” — in the U.S., and elsewhere — has drifted far from the HTSUS drafters’ intent. Although it will have to await another case and another day, it seems a virtual certainty that the recent developments cited by the Government will result in a sea change in the law of “festive articles.” In the meantime, however, as discussed both above and below, the Government has identified no reasoned, principled basis for distinguishing the merchandise at issue in this action from that at issue in Midwest of Cannon Falls, Park B. Smith, and Russ Berrie. Whatever significance those decisions may hold for the classification of “festive articles” in the future, they lead directly — and largely inexorably — to the result reached here today. B. The Government’s “One Step Removed” Argument In addition to its relatively straightforward claim that the “utilitarian” or “functional” nature of the subject merchandise precludes its classification as “festive articles,” the Government advances a second, related argument, which — although ultimately unavailing — is both novel and more nuanced. The Government points to the decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“CITT”) in Wilton-Canada II, which ruled that certain Christmas-themed bakeware was not classifiable under heading 9505. See Wilton Indus. Canada Ltd. v. Comm’r of Canada Customs & Revenue Agency, AP-2001-088 (CITT Nov. 8, 2002) (“Wilton-Canada II”). According to the reasoning of Wilton-Canada II, the baking pans there at issue were not — in and of themselves — festive articles, but instead were “used to make, or [were] one step removed from, the festive article, that is, the Christmas cookie or cake.” See Def.’s Brief at 27-28 (quoting Wilton-Canada II). At first blush, the rationale of Wilton-Canada II has both visceral and rhetorical appeal. But, in fact, that rationale is woven from three strands of analysis (an analogy, an interpretation of U.S. law, and a public policy concern), none of which withstands close scrutiny. In Wilton-Canada II, the CITT emphasized that the Explanatory Notes to heading 9505 list “articles that are actually used during the [Christmas] festivities, e.g., Christmas crackers and Christmas stockings.” See Wilton-Canada II, AP-2001-088 (CITT Nov. 8, 2002). The CITT further noted that, in the Explanatory Notes, “[o]ne does not find the articles used to make such articles, for example, the patterns used to make the Christmas stockings.” Id. The CITT concluded: “Similarly, while cakes [in festive motifs] are covered [as ‘festive articles’ under heading 9505], the goods used to produce them — cake and cookie pans — are not mentioned.” Id. (footnote added). But the CITT’s analogy in Wilton-Canada II is strained at best. Patterns used to make Christmas stockings are fundamentally different from festive-themed pans used to make Christmas baked goods, in several respects. Perhaps most significantly, sewing patterns can be used to make Christmas stockings year-round. While it would be aberrant to hang Christmas stockings on the mantle other than at Christmas time, it would not be aberrant to sew such stockings at other times of the year, in anticipation of (and in preparation for) the Christmas season. Thus, it would not be aberrant to use patterns for Christmas stocking year-round. See generally Park B. Smith, Ltd. v. United States, 347 F.3d 922, 929 (Fed.Cir.2003) (article is classifiable under heading 9505 only if its use at times other than festive occasion would be “aberrant”). In contrast, Christmas-themed cookies and cakes generally are baked only during the Christmas season. Thus, the distinctive, festive-shaped bakeware used to make such treats is used only during the Christmas season; and its use at any other time of the year would be “aberrant.” See id. Indeed, as the record evidence in Wilton-Canada II indicated, “the preparation of ... baked goods is an integral part of the Christmas holidays.” See Wilton-Canada II, AP-2001-088 (CITT Nov. 8, 2002). Just as the analogy drawn in Wiltorir-Canada II was (to indulge a pun) somewhat “half-baked,” so too the Canadian tribunal misread the U.S. caselaw on which it relied in reaching its decision. The CITT wrote: Although it is clearly not bound by U.S. decisions, the Tribunal notes that, in Midwest and Park Smith, it was required that the goods be “displayed and used” (emphasis added) only during the festive season. The goods in issue [in the case before the CITT] are used, it could be argued, at Christmas time, but they are certainly not displayed. The appellant has not cited a case in which the goods were not displayed, but nonetheless included in heading No. 95.05. Wilton-Canada II, AP-2001-088 (CITT Nov. 8, 2002) (emphasis in the original) (citing Midwest of Cannon Falls, 122 F.3d 1423; Park B. Smith, Ltd. v. United States, 25 CIT 506 (2001)). Contrary to the premise of Wilton-Canada II, however, nothing in the U.S. case-law to date limits “festive article” classification to only that themed merchandise which is “displayed” on festive occasions. For example, in Park B. Smith, the Court of Appeals observed: In Midwest of Cannon Falls the court held that classification as a “festive article” under Chapter 95 requires that the article satisfy two criteria: (1) it must be closely associated with a festive occasion and (2) the article is used or displayed principally during that festive occasion. Park B. Smith, 347 F.3d at 927 (emphasis added). In short, to the extent that the CITT’s decision in Wilton-Canada II read U.S. caselaw to require that “festive articles” be “displayed” to justify classification under heading 9505, that decision was in error. Finally, in the context of a linguistic analysis comparing the French and English texts of the language of heading 9505, the CITT voiced a public policy concern, noting that it was “not convinced that Parliament meant that everything used in the preparation toward Christmas festivities should be classified in heading No. 95.05 as a festive article.” See Wilton-Canada II, AP-2001-088 (CITT Nov. 8, 2002) (emphasis added). At least under the law of this country, however, any such concern would be unwarranted. Whether merchandise is “used” or “displayed” (or both), U.S. case-law permits its classification under heading 9505 only if its principal “use” or “display” is limited to a festive occasion, such that its “use” or “display” at other times of the year would be “aberrant.” See Russ Ber-rie, 381 F.3d at 1336, 1338; Park B. Smith, 347 F.3d at 927, 929; Midwest of Cannon Falls, 122 F.3d at 1429. That “aberrant use” test serves as a discriminating filter, screening out the vast majority of goods that are — in the words of the CITT — “used in the preparation toward [a festive occasion],” and precluding the classification of such goods as “festive articles” under heading 9505. In sum, for all these reasons, the Government’s reliance on Wilton-Canada II in this case is misplaced. Contrary to the Government’s implication and Wilton-Canada II, festive bakeware is not categorically and by definition “one step removed” from “festive articles” classifiable under heading 9505 — at least not under the law of Midwest of Cannon Falls and Park B. Smith. C. “Festive” Occasions Within the Scope of Heading 9505 According to Wilton, much of the merchandise at issue is associated not with traditional holidays such as Halloween, Christmas, or Valentine’s Day, but instead with what Wilton terms “private festive celebrations” — special occasions such as birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, and graduations. The Government maintains that such goods are not prima facie classifiable as “festive articles,” because — according to the Government— only recognized “holidays” are festive occasions within the meaning of heading 9505. See generally Def.’s Brief at 18-19, 24-25; Def.’s Reply Brief at 3, 5; Def.’s Supp. Brief at 2-3 (asserting that “[n]either Midwest, Smith, Russ Berrie, Ruble’s, nor any other court action involving classification within Heading 9505 and which was the subject of a decision of this Court or the Federal Circuit involved the classification of wedding, birthday, anniversary or any other celebratory event not related to a recognized holiday”). The Government insists that the ship has already sailed on this issue — that is, that the Court of Appeals has previously expressly ruled that heading 9505 covers only merchandise associated with specific recognized holidays. See generally Def.’s Brief at 19, 24-25; Def.’s Reply Brief at 2, 5; Def.’s Supp. Brief at 3 (asserting that Court of Appeals has limited “festive articles” under heading 9505 to “particular holiday occasion[s]”). But, contrary to the Government’s assertions, whether “private festive celebrations” such as birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, and graduations are within the scope of heading 9505 is an issue of first impression — at least in the courts of the United States. To be sure, as the Government emphasizes, the U.S. caselaw on heading 9505 has often discussed festive occasions in terms of “holidays.” In Park B. Smith, for example, the Court of Appeals stated that, to be classifiable as a “festive article,” Midwest of Cannon Falls requires that merchandise “have a direct association with and limited use to a particular holiday occasion.” Park B. Smith, 347 F.3d at 929 (emphasis added). However, the Government reads much too much into that use of the word “holiday.” A careful review of Park B. Smith reveals that the Court of Appeals there used “holiday” essentially as a shorthand reference, in the context of drawing a distinction between merchandise that is properly classifiable as “festive articles” under heading 9505 and other merchandise that is merely “directed to general or seasonal use.” See Park B. Smith, 347 F.3d at 929. Indeed, all the merchandise at issue in Park B. Smith and Midwest of Cannon Falls was asserted to be associated with particular recognized holidays — specifically, Valentine’s Day, Easter, the Fourth of July, Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. None of the merchandise in either of the cases was claimed to be associated with what Wilton here terms “private festive occasions.” Thus, to date the U.S. courts have had no reason to speak to whether “private festive celebrations” such as birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, and graduations are “festive” occasions within the scope of heading 9505. The issue simply has never presented itself. As a threshold matter, the Government overlooks the salient point: Presumably, had the drafters intended HTSUS heading 9505 to refer to “holiday” (rather than “festive”) articles, they would have used that more specific term. But they chose not to do so. Nor is there anything about the language that they did use that suggests that the language was intended to have the restrictive meaning that the Government seeks to ascribe to it. Tariff terms — such as the term “festive” in the title of heading 9505 — are construed according to their common and commercial meanings, which are presumed to be the same. Warner-Lambert Co. v. United States, 407 F.3d 1207, 1209 (Fed.Cir.2005). The meaning of a tariff term may be discerned by consulting dictionaries and other reliable sources of information. Id. (citing Mead Corp. v. United States, 283 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed.Cir.2002)). And, contrary to the implication of the Government here, nothing in the definition of the word “festive” suggests that the term is limited to civic and religious holidays, or that it excludes private celebrations such as birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, and graduations. According to the Encarta World English Dictionary (North American Edition), for example, “festive” is defined as “1. relating to celebration: relating to, suitable for, or typical of a feast, festival, or holiday.” Encarta World English Dictionary (North Am. Edition) (Microsoft 2007) (emphasis added). As the disjunctive “or” in that definition makes clear, “festive” occasions are not limited to holidays. Similarly, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) defines the term as “1: of, belonging to, or befitting a feast, festival, or other celebration,” and — as one illustration of the use of the word — notes: “craise the flag on public holidays and other * * * occasions >.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged) (Merriam-Webster Inc.2002) (emphasis added). Thus, that definition too demonstrates that “festive occasions” are not limited to “public holidays.” Most dictionary definitions of “festive” do not even mention the word “holiday.” For example, The Oxford English Dictionary defines “festive” as “1. Of or pertaining to a feast; such as befits a feast.” The Oxford English Dictionary 853 (2d ed.1989). The definition in Webster’s New World Dictionary: Second College Edition is to the same effect: “of, for, or suited to a feast or festival; merry; joyous.” Webster’s New World Dictionary: Second College Edition 517 (William Collins 1979). Similarly, in Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, “festive” is defined as “1: of, relating to, or suitable for a feast or festival;] 2: JOYFUL, GAY.” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 458 (Merriam-Webster Ine.1983). Even more to the point, at least one dictionary definition goes so far as to specifically identify birthdays and weddings as “festive occasions.” See, e.g., Gage Canadian Dictionary 574 (1997) (defining “festive” as “for a feast, festival, or holiday; gay; joyous; merry: A birthday or wedding is a festive occasion.”) (quoted in Nicholson Equip. Ltd. v. Deputy Minister of Nat’l Revenue, AP-96-080 (CITT April 25,1997) (“Nicholson I ”); Nicholson Equip. Ltd. v. Deputy Minister of Nat’l Revenue, AP-97-110 & AP-97-113 (CITT Sept. 2, 1998) (“Nicholson II”); Wilton Indus. Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Comm’r of Customs & Revenue Agency), AP-2001-081 (CITT Sept. 24, 2002) (“Wilton-Canada I ”)). Further, although the question of the occasions -within the scope of heading 9505 is an issue of first impression here, that is not to say that the matter has not been addressed by comparable tribunals and other authorities elsewhere in the world. Defining the scope of heading 9505 to include “private festive celebrations” such as birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, and graduations is consistent with the law and practice of other nations. Canadian customs and international trade authorities, for example, have expressly recognized birthdays, weddings, and anniversaries as “festive” occasions within the meaning of heading 9505. See, e.g., Wilton I, AP-2001-081 (CITT Sept. 24, 2002) (birthdays); Nicholson II, AP-97-110 & AP-97-113 (CITT Sept. 2, 1998) (birthdays, as well as “other joyous events in a child’s life”); Nicholson I, AP-96-080 (CITT April 25, 1997) (weddings and anniversaries). Indeed, neither party has here identified any country that limits classification as “festive articles” under heading 9505 solely to merchandise associated with recognized “holidays.” The icing on the cake — so to speak — is Customs’ agreement to classify certain merchandise at issue in this action as “festive articles” under heading 9505. The vast majority of the merchandise that is subject to the parties’ Stipulation is made up of white or clear wedding cake separator plates, pillars, and columns marketed and sold by Wilton as wedding-related merchandise, for use on the elaborately-decorated, multi-tiered cakes typically served at wedding and wedding anniversary celebrations. See Stipulation. The Government thus has already agreed that that merchandise — like all the merchandise subject to the Stipulation — is classifiable as “festive articles” under heading 9505. And the Government has identified no recognized “holiday” with which the stipulated wedding cake separator plates, pillars, and columns are “closely associated.” Nor can the Government do so. Equally, if not even more, clear cut is the Government’s agreement under the parties’ Stipulation to classify under heading 9505 Wilton’s “Black Graduation Caps Topper Set” (item # 2113-1801) — which, as its name suggests, consists of two identical, miniature black graduation caps (with the word “Graduation” in script across the front of the caps), sold for use as “cake toppers” or “party favors.” Again, the Government has identified no recognized “holiday” with which the “Black Graduation Caps Topper Set” is closely associated. Nor can it do so. In short, the Government’s claim that “private festive celebrations” such as birthdays, weddings, anniversaries, and graduations are not “festive” occasions for purposes of heading 9505 simply cannot be reconciled with the Government’s position as evidenced in the parties’ Stipulation. In sum, there is no merit to the Government’s claim that the “festive” occasions within the scope of HTSUS heading 9505 are limited to “recognized” holidays. At a minimum, special occasions and events such as the weddings, anniversaries, and birthdays at issue here are “festive” occasions within the meaning of that heading. D. Customs’ Claim to Skidmore Deference Although Customs denied Wilton’s Protests in this matter without issuing a ruling letter, the Government nevertheless asserts that Customs’ position is entitled to the full measure of Skidmore deference. See Def.’s Brief at 4, 6-7 (quoting Park B. Smith, 347 F.3d at 925, for the proposition that, “even where no formal decision has been issued with respect to specific merchandise, ‘Skidmore weight should be given to Customs’ position’ ”). But see Pl.’s Reply Brief at 17-19; Pl.’s Supp. Brief at 4-9. According to the Government, Skidmore deference is due because “Customs’ classification decisions in this case are consistent with its position regarding the classification of cake decorations as set forth in several Headquarters Ruling Letters (‘HQ’), New York Ruling Letters (‘NY’), and its interpretation of the tariff term ‘festive articles’ set forth in the informed compliance publication entitled ‘What Every Member of the Trade Community Should Know About Classification of Festive Articles as a result of the Midwest of Cannon Falls Court Case (1997).’ ” See Def.’s Brief at 5. But Customs has no colorable claim to deference under the circumstances of this case. First, as noted above, not only was Customs’ position in this matter not the product of a deliberative notice-and-comment process, it was not even embodied in a ruling letter specific to the merchandise at issue in this action. Nor does the Government suggest that any of the other Customs ruling letters to which it alludes were subject to notice and comment. See Structural Indus., 356 F.3d at 1370 (refusing Skidmore deference where, inter alia, Customs ruling letter was not product of notice-and-comment process); Hartog Foods Int’l, Inc. v. United States, 291 F.3d 789, 791 (Fed.Cir.2002) (extending no Skidmore deference “because Customs denied [the] protest without an official ruling”). Further, the “position” for which the Government seeks deference is entirely unclear. The Government’s brief (quoted above) asserts broadly that Customs’ classification decisions in this case are “consistent with [the agency’s] position regarding the classification of cake decorations as set forth in several Headquarters Ruling Letters (‘HQ’), [and] New York Ruling Letters (‘NY’).” See Def.’s Brief at 5. However, nowhere in its briefs does the Government identify the specific Customs ruling letters to which it is there referring. And nowhere in its briefs does the Government explain how those unspecified Customs ruling letters concerning cake decorations are consistent with Customs’ actions in this case. In addition to the unspecified Customs ruling letters that it invokes, the Government also asserts that Customs’ determination in this matter is consistent with the agency’s position on the classification of “festive articles” as set forth in the Customs publication, “What Every Member of the Trade Community Should Know About Classification of Festive Articles as a Result of the Midwest of Cannon Falls Court Case” (Nov.1997), published at 32 Cust. Bull. & Dec. Nos. 2/3 at 169 (Jan. 21, 1998). However, that publication has been so thoroughly discredited that Customs has now withdrawn it. See generally Pl.’s Reply Brief at 18-19; Pl.’s Supp. Brief at 6-7. The publication thus does nothing to support Customs’ claim to deference in this action. More generally, to the extent that the Government’s argument here is that Customs has taken a “consistent” position on the scope of “festive articles” under heading 9505, it is little exaggeration to say that the Court of Appeals has just as consistently rejected Customs’ position. Further, there is nothing else about the position that Customs took at the administrative level in this case that would support a claim of deference. There is no relationship between any rationale for the agency’s denial of the protests at issue, and the arguments made here to defend those denials. In denying Wilton’s Protests, for example, Customs did not rely on the 2003 amendment to the Explanatory Notes excluding “utilitarian” or “functional” articles from the scope of heading 9505, on which the Government relies so heavily here. See Protests (annotated by Customs to indicate denial, stating simply that “merchandise does not qualify as toys or festive articles,” and that “mdse, does not qualify for either toys or festive articles”). Indeed, Customs could not have done so. At the time Customs denied the Protests in 2000, no such change to the Explanatory-Notes was even under consideration by the World Customs Organization. See PL’s Reply Brief at 5 (noting that, in denying Protest, “Customs did not, and could not, rely upon the later-adopted Explanatory Note change as the basis for its classification of Wilton’s goods in liquidation”); see generally Michael Simon Design, 30 CIT at -, 452 F.Supp.2d at 1323 (denying deference in “festive articles” case, noting that Government relied on 2003 amendment to Explanatory Notes in litigation, but that protest was denied solely on other grounds, which in turn were not asserted in litigation). Nor did Customs’ denial of Wilton’s Protests make any reference to the “one step removed” argument that the Government has asserted in this litigation. See section III.B, supra. Customs’ terse dismissal of Wilton’s Protests similarly failed to focus to any degree on issues such as the scope of the “festive” occasions within the ambit of heading 9505, and the specific motifs of the merchandise here at issue — arguments that the Government has advanced strenuously in this forum. See section III.C, supra; section III.F, infra. For all these reasons, Customs’ position lacks “power to persuade,” and thus merits no deference in this action. See Skidmore, 323 U.S. at 140, 65 S.Ct. 161. E. The Classification of Merchandise in Sets As discussed in greater detail below, some of the items at issue consist of multiples of the same article. For example, Wilton’s Cherub Place Card Holders are sold in sets of four identical card holders. In other instances, an item consists of multiple articles that are identical, except for variations in size^ — the Star Nesting Perimeter [Cookie] Cutter Set, for example. Other items — such as the Christmas Cookie Collection Set — comprise a number of different articles (in that case, assorted Christmas cookie cutters). And, finally, the merchandise at issue includes three different types of Counter Display Units (“CDUs”), which are retail displays offered by Wilton for seasonal use in stores such as Target, Wal-Mart, or Michael’s. Each such retail display unit includes several different types of cookie cutters or cookie stamps, which the retailer sells to shoppers individually. See generally 144 ct. North Pole Mini Cookie Cutter CDU [Counter Display Unit]; 48 ct. Jolly Stamps! Cookie Stamp CDU [Counter Display Unit]; Halloween Mini [Cookie] Cutter CDU [Counter Display Unit] (96 ct.). Where all of the articles in a set are classifiable under a single heading of the HTSUS, no special classification analysis is required. In this case, that includes sets that are made up of several articles that are identical (or identical except for size), as well as sets that are made up of several different articles all of which are classifiable under the same heading of the HTSUS. Further, no special analysis of the CDUs is required, because the assorted articles included in them are not “put up in sets for retail sale,” but, instead, are sold — and classified — individually. See Explanatory Notes VI & X, General Rule of Interpretation (“GRI”) 3(b), HTSUS. In contrast, where an item consists of two or more articles “put up in [a] set[ ] for retail sale” and the articles within that set “prima facie, fall under two or more headings,” classification is governed by GRI 3(b) of the HTSUS. Under GRI 3(b) — which sets forth the so-called “essential character” test — “goods put up in sets for retail sale ... shall be classified as if they consisted of the material or component which gives them their essential character.” See GRI 3(b), HTSUS. As the Court of Appeals has emphasized, the “essential character” inquiry is fundamentally factual in nature. See Structural Indus., Inc. v. United States, 356 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2004) (citing Pillowtex Corp. v. United States, 171 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed.Cir.1999)). And, as the Explanatory Notes to GRI 3(b) make clear, there is no hard-and-fast rule for conducting that inquiry, which is more art than science: The factor which determines essential character will vary as between different kinds of goods. It may, for example, be determined by the nature of the material or component, its bulk, quantity, weight or value, or by the role of a constituent material in relation to the use of the goods. Explanatory Note VIII, GRI 3(b), HTSUS; Canadian Vinyl Indus., Inc. v. United States, 76 Cust. Ct. 1, 2, 408 F.Supp. 1377, 1378 (1976), aff'd, 64 C.C.P.A. 97, 555 F.2d 806 (1977) (noting that “[discernment” of “essential character” is not “an exact science”). In addition to the examples listed in the Explanatory Notes, Better Home Plastics identified various other factors that may be considered in determining “essential character,” including the respective indispensability of the properties of the components of the merchandise, the respective cost of the components of the merchandise, the basis for a consumer’s decision to purchase the merchandise, the respective duration and/or frequency of the use of the components, and the manner in which the merchandise is invoiced. See Better Home Plastics Corp. v. United States, 20 CIT 221, 224, 916 F.Supp. 1265, 1267 (1996), aff'd, 119 F.3d 969 (Fed.Cir.1997); see also Conair Corp. v. United States, 29 CIT -, -, 2005 WL 1941649 at * 5-* 6 (2005) (“essential character” of tabletop fountains imparted by pump, rather than sculpture element of fountain; consumer’s decision to purchase fountain “based entirely on the presence of the submersible pump and its ability to generate the sound of flowing water”). The marketing of the merchandise is relevant as well, though it does not dictate classification. See Mead Corp. v. United States, 283 F.3d 1342, 1349 (Fed.Cir.2002). If merchandise cannot be classified pursuant to GRI 3(b) and the “essential character” test, then it is classified “under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration,” pursuant to GRI 3(c). See GRI 3(c), HTSUS. F. The Classification of the Subject Merchandise In light of the analyses above, all that remains is to classify each individual piece of the subject merchandise, applying the two-prong test for “festive articles” established in Midwest of Cannon Falls, 122 F.3d 1423. As distilled in Park B. Smith and outlined above, that test requires that an article be both (1) “closely associated with a festive occasion,” and (2) “used or displayed principally during that festive occasion.” See Park B. Smith, 347 F.3d at 927 (citing Midwest of Cannon Falls, 122 F.3d at 1429). If the article’s use or display at other times would not be “aberrant,” then the merchandise does not satisfy the test and cannot be classified as a “festive article” under heading 9505. Park B. Smith, 347 F.3d at 927, 929 1. Wedding Cake Separator Plates, Pillars, Columns, and Plate Legs Much of the Wilton merchandise remaining at issue consists of wedding cake separator plates, pillars and columns, and separator plate legs, all of which Wilton contends are classifiable as “festive articles” under heading 9505. Specifically, the separator plates, pillars and columns, and plate legs at issue include the 9" Square Separator Plate (item # 302-1020), the 13" Square Separator Plate (item # 302-1063), the 7" Hexagon Separator Plate (item # 302-1705), the 10" Hexagon Separator Plate (item # 302-1748), the 13" Hexagon Separator Plate (item # 302-1764), the 16" Hexagon Separator Plate (item # 302-1799), the 17" Crystal-Look Separator Plate (item # 302-1810), the 7" Crystal-Look Separator Plate (item # 302-2013), the 9" Crystal-Look Separator Plate (item # 302-2035), the 11" Crystal-Look Separator Plate (item # 302-2051), the 13" Crystal-Look Separator Plate (item # 302-2078), the 16/&" Heart Separator Plate (item # 302-2118), the 8%" Oval Separator Plate (item # 302-2130), the 11/é" Oval Separator Plate (item # 302-2131), the 14/é" Oval Separator Plate (item # 302-2132), the 14" Tier Stand Additional Cake Plate (item # 302-7940), the 16" Tier Stand Additional Cake Plate (item # 302-7967), the 18" Tier Stand Additional Cake Plate (item # 302-7983), the 6" Separator Plate — White (Replacement) (item # 302-9730), the 8" Separator Plate — White (Replacement) (item # 302-9749), the 10" Separator Plate-White (Replacement) (item # 302-9757), the 16" Separator Plate — White (Replacement) (item # 302-9780), the 7" Crystal-Look Spiked Pillars (item # 303-2322), the 9" Crystal-Look Spiked Pillars (item # 303-2324), the 6)4" Tier Stand Additional Column (item # 303-7910), the 7 3/4" Tier Stand Additional Column (item # 304-5009), the Tall Tier Cake Stand Basic Set (item # 304-7915), and the Glue-On Plate Legs (item # 304-7930). See Pl.’s Amended Exh. B-l. As discussed above, the wedding cake separator plates, pillars and columns, and plate legs are used in combination with one another to separate and elevate the layers of a multi-tiered cake of the type typically served at a wedding reception or an anniversary celebration. To be sure, the merchandise has a “functional” or “utilitarian” purpose. But, because the separator plates, pillars and columns, and plate legs are visible when the wedding cake is presented (and, indeed, are part of the “presentation” of the wedding cake as a whole), they must be beautiful, as well as stable and strong. See generally section I.A, supra.' The separator plates, pillars and columns, and plate legs are, in essence, non-edible cake decorations for use on multi-tiered wedding-type cakes. And the. Explanatory Notes to heading 9505 expressly state that the heading covers “[c]ake and other decorations ... which are traditionally associated with a particular festival.” See Explanatory Notes, Heading 9505, HTSUS; Pl.’s Brief at 16-17 (asserting that items at issue are “cake decorations” within meaning of Explanatory Notes to heading 9505); section III.C, supra (discussing weddings as “festive” occasions within meaning of heading 9505). In addition, as a review of the exhibits that Wilton filed with the Court amply demonstrates, Wilton’s separator plates, pillars and columns, and plate legs are designed to evoke the look of fine leaded crystal, elegant lace, and other nuptial motifs “closely associated with” weddings and anniversaries. See P