United States Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co v. United States Tariff Commission, 91

Decision Date11 April 1927
Docket NumberNo. 91,91
Citation71 L.Ed. 949,47 S.Ct. 499,274 U.S. 106
PartiesUNITED STATES ex rel. NORWEGIAN NITROGEN PRODUCTS CO., Inc., v. UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.

The Attorney General and Mr. W. D. Mitchell, Sol. Gen., and Robert P. Reeder, both of Washington, D. C. for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Tariff Act of September 21, 1922, c. 356, § 315, 42 Stat. 858, 941 (Comp. St. §§ 5841c19-5841c24), vested in the President the power to adjust tariff duties, so as to equalize differences in costs of production here and abroad of articles wholly or in part the growth or product of this county, whenever an investigation by the Tariff Commission should reveal disparate costs. Such investigation is made a prerequisite to action by the President in proclaiming changes of rates. By executive order of October 7, 1922, it was provided that all petitions or applications for action or relief under the so-called flexible sections of the Tariff Act of 1922 should be filed with the Tariff Commission.

In October, 1922, the American Nitrogen Products Company, a corporation of the state of Washington, filed with the United States Tariff Commission a petition praying for a 50 per cent. increase in the duty imposed by the Tariff Act of 1922 upon imported sodium nitrite. The following March the Tariff Commission, for the purpose of assisting the President in the exercise of the powers delegated to him by the act of 1922, ordered an investigation of the differences in cost of production of sodium nitrite at home and abroad, and of other pertinent facts and conditions. It was further ordered that all parties interested should be given an opportunity to be present and produce evidence at a public hearing to be held at a date to be fixed later.

Plaintiff in error is engaged in the importation of nitrogen products into the United States, which it sells on commission. It represents in the United States as exclusive agent the Norwegian Hydro-Electric Nitrogen Corporation, the only manufacturer of sodium nitrite in Norway. Representatives of the commission in the course of its investigation proceeded to Norway and Germany, and sought from the Norwegian company and from German manufacturers data showing the cost of production of sodium nitrite in those countries. This was refused. The commission's experts were permitted to examine the books and records of American manufacturers, obtaining information of the domestic cost of production and other relevant data. This information was given under promise that it should be treated as confidential and upon the assurance that the rules of the commission and section 708 of the Revenue Act of September 8, 1916, c. 463, 39 Stat. 756, 798 (Comp. St. § 5326i), so required. Section 708 prohibits the commission from revealing 'the trade secrets or processes' of which it might learn in the course of its investigations.

After making its investigation, the commission ordered a public hearing to be held on September 10, 1926. Its rules provided that:

'Parties who have entered appearances shall, prior to the filing of briefs, have opportunity to examine the report of the commissioner or investigator in charge of the investigation and also the record except such portions as relate to trade secrets and processes.'

At the hearing, plaintiff appeared by counsel and demanded a complete copy of the application of the American Nitrogen Products Company and attempted to cross examine its president as to its cost of production. In making these and other similar demands in the course of the hearings, plaintiff relied on the provisions of section 315(c) of the Act of 1922 (Comp. St. § 5841c21), reading in part:

'The commission shall give reasonable public notice of its hearings and shall give reasonable opportunity to parties interested to be present, to produce evidence, and to be heard. The commission is authorized to adopt such reasonable procedure, rules, and regulations as it may deem necessary.'

The commission, holding that its action was controlled by section 708 of the Revenue Act of 1916, prohibiting it from divulging trade secrets or processes of which it acquired information in the course of investigation, excluded the questions asked and disclosed only a copy of the application of the American company, from which a statement of its costs of production had been deleted. On September 15, 1923, the commission made a preliminary report stating the results of its inquiry. The report contained a review of the data in the possession of the commission, including an estimate of the cost of production in Norway, based upon such public sources in Norway as were available to it; both the Norwegian company and the plaintiff having refused to give any information on the subject. But, following its settled policy, it withheld all material which would reveal the individual production costs of American manufacturers. Its practice is to publish the average domestic cost, but this was withheld here, because the average cost was deemed informative of individual costs, in view of the small number of American manufacturers. Hearings were resumed on September 26, at which plaintiff was given an opportunity to offer evidence, to make oral argument and to file briefs. Requests by plaintiff to cross-examine the commission's field examiners and experts and to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Pasco Terminals, Inc. v. United States, C.D. 4823
    • United States
    • United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
    • September 26, 1979
    ...Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States Tariff Commission, 55 App.D.C. 366, 6 F.2d 491, 495 (D.C.Cir. 1925), rev'd, 274 U.S. 106, 47 S.Ct. 499, 71 L.Ed. 949 (1927). More particularly, in Norwegian Nitrogen the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia stated that the "term `trade secrets......
  • American Const. Fire Assur. Co. v. O'Malley, 34629.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 25, 1938
    ...these insurance companies accepted such increase and have since put it in effect. This ends the litigation. United States ex rel. Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. Tariff Comm., 274 U.S. 106; Brownlow, Commr., District of Columbia, v. Schwartz, 261 U.S. 216, 43 Sup. Ct. 263; Alejandrino v. Quezon, ......
  • American Constitution Fire Assur. Co. v. O'Malley
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • February 25, 1938
    ......167; International Organization United. Mine Workers of America v. Red Jacket ...Ry. Co. v. Anthony, 73 Mo. 434; United States ex rel. Louisiana. v. Jack, 244 U.S. 397; ... United States ex rel. Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. Tariff Comm., 274 U.S. 106;. ......
  • Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Food and Drug Admin., 82-1745
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • April 15, 1983
    ...Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States Tariff Commission, 6 F.2d 491, 495 (D.C.Cir.1925), vacated as moot, 274 U.S. 106, 47 S.Ct. 499, 71 L.Ed. 949 (1927). 17 Under this definition, a trade secret is " 'an unpatented, commercially valuable plan, appliance, formula, or process, whi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT