In the case of Holophane Co., Inc. v. United States in 1956, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over import duties for glass prisms used in street lights. The U.S Customs had classified these items as "glassware" and imposed a higher duty rate than what would have been applied if they were considered "lenses." Holophane Company argued that their products should be categorized as lenses due to their function of refracting light, thereby qualifying them for lower tariff rates under the Tariff Act of 1930. The court sided with the government's interpretation that these items did not meet the definition of lenses because they didn't bring light rays to focus but rather dispersed them. Therefore, it upheld that such goods are correctly classifiable as glassware attracting higher tariffs according to customs law at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for Holophane Co., Inc. v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tariff classification on glassware imported by Holophane Company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the Tariff Commission had misinterpreted and misapplied the law when determining whether or not these items should be classified as "glassware." They contended that this term is too broad and ambiguous, leading to an unfair application of tariffs on goods like those imported by Holophane Company. Furthermore, they disagreed with how much weight was given to common commercial understanding in defining what constitutes "glassware," arguing instead for a more technical interpretation based on manufacturing processes used in creating these products. This disagreement over interpretive methods led them to conclude that the case should have been decided differently.