is "not obligatory”); Orlando Food Corp., 140 F.3d at 1441 (stating that "[r]esort to this aid to statutory construction [that use provisions are generally deemed more specific than eo nomine provisions] is not obligatory, however, as it is merely a 'convenient rule of thumb for resolving issues where the competing provisions are otherwise in balance.’ ”) (quoting United States v. Siemens Am., Inc., 68 C.C.P.A. 62, 653 F.2d 471, 478 n. 6 (Cust. & Pat.App.1981)). The general "rule of thumb” has no application where — as here — one tariff provision (in effect) "specifies a single article for proper classification” and the competing provision "is a broad provision encompassing a variety of articles with specific and independent uses.” Len-Ron Mfg. Co., 334 F.3d at 1313 (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, even assuming that it were
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 holding that pursuant to gri 3a relative specificity analysis htsus provision which covered merchandise when viewed as a unit is more specific than provision covering glassware of a kind used for  indoor decoration which only describes a portion of the item holding htsus provision covering ice hockey  articles and equipment to be much more specific than htsus provision which refers quite broadly to other garments of manmade fibers recognizing the general rule but finding the eo nomine provision in question to be more specific holding wills more specific provision prevails over general provision