such specific use requirement. Comparing the two competing provisions, both of which are quite broad in their reach, it is clear that the use provision, item 685.90, is “undoubtedly more restrictive and ‘difficult to satisfy.’ ” Therefore, the SVPs are more specifically described in item 685.90. Our conclusion concerning the relative specificity of the two competing provisions is supported by the general rule of construction that, in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, a product described by both a use provision and an eo nomine provision is generally more specifically provided for under the use provision. Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. United States, 67 CCPA 71, C.A.D. 1247, 622 F. 2d 1027 (1980); cf. United States v. Simon Saw & Steel Co., 51 CCPA 33, C.A.D. 834 (1964) (<HOLDING>). In accordance with the construction aid, the
recognizing general rule holding that a specific statutory provision prevails over a more general one holding wills more specific provision prevails over general provision holding eo nomine tariff provision covering vanity cases to be more specific than tariff provision covering articles of a kind normally carried in the pocket or in the handbag recognizing the general rule but finding the eo nomine provision in question to be more specific