In the 1909 case of Komada & Co. v. United States, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over import duties on Japanese rice straw braid used for making hats. The U.S government classified this product under "braids, plaits and laces" which had an import duty of 20 cents per pound while Komada & Co., a Japanese company argued that it should be categorized as "straw braids" which only had an import duty of 15% ad valorem (based on value). The court ruled in favor of the U.S government stating that since there was no specific mention or provision for 'rice straw braid' in tariff laws, it could not be specifically exempted from higher duties. Therefore, they upheld its classification under "braids, plaits and laces", thereby affirming the decision made by lower courts.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Komada & Co. v. United States argued that the majority's decision to uphold a customs duty on imported silk handkerchiefs was incorrect and inconsistent with previous court rulings. The dissent contended that these items should be classified as 'wearing apparel,' which would exempt them from import duties under existing trade agreements between Japan and the U.S., rather than as 'manufactures of silk', which are subject to such duties. They pointed out inconsistencies in how similar items had been categorized, arguing for a more uniform interpretation of tariff laws. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's reliance on dictionary definitions instead of considering practical usage or commercial understanding when interpreting legal terms, suggesting this approach could lead to arbitrary decisions and unfair treatment for importers.