terms in the tariff provision; and [then] (2) determines] whether the merchandise at issue comes within the description of such terms as a properly construed.” Pillowtex Corp. v. Unites States, 171 F.3d 1370, 1373 (Fed. Cir.1999) (citing Bausch & Lamb, Inc. v. United States, 148 F.3d 1363, 1365 (Fed. Cir.1998)). The first step in the analysis is a question of law and the second is a question of fact, both of which are determined de novo. See Pillowtex Corp., 171 F.3d at 1373; Rollerblade, Inc. v. United States, 282 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed.Cir.2002). A classification by Customs is presumed to be correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2639(a)(1) and the court affords deference to the classification in accordance with Skidmore v. Swift & Co. See 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944) (<HOLDING>); Rollerblade, Inc., 282 F.3d at 1352 (citing
holding that a district court is entitled to give more weight to the seriousness of the offense than to other factors holding that the weight of a classification determination depends upon all those factors which give it power to persuade holding that an agencys informal interpretation of a statute it administers is entitled to deference to the extent it has the power to persuade holding that wjhere the right to compensation depends upon which of two conflicting medical theories should be accepted the issue is peculiarly for commissions determination holding that if the imposition of the death penalty depends on the existence of aggravating factors a jury must find those factors beyond a reasonable doubt