City Lumber Co. v. United States
Decision Date | 26 March 1970 |
Docket Number | Reappraisement R62/3973. |
Citation | 311 F. Supp. 340 |
Parties | CITY LUMBER CO. et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) |
Frank G. Parker, New York City, for appellants.
William D. Ruckelshaus, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Frederick L. Ikenson, New York City, trial attorney), for appellee.
Before WATSON, MALETZ, and RE, Judges.
This is an application for review of the decision and judgment of Judge David J. Wilson in City Lumber Co. et al. v. United States, 61 Cust.Ct. 448, R.D. 11557, 290 F.Supp. 385 (1968), which upheld the imposition of dumping duties on three shipments of portland gray cement exported from Portugal. Appellants claim, as they did below, that the dumping duty appraisements are illegal, and they therefore seek a reversal of the judgment entered by Judge Wilson.
The special dumping duties, under section 202(a) of the Antidumping Act of 1921, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 161(a) (1964)), were imposed after the United States Tariff Commission issued its "Determination of Injury", TC Publication 37, AA1921-22, dated October 20, 1961, and the Treasury Department, on October 31, 1961, pursuant to section 201(a) of the Antidumping Act, made public its finding of dumping. (26 F.R. 10476)
The pertinent provisions of the Antidumping Act of 1921, as amended, may be set forth as follows:
The record herein is entirely documentary and consists of "the complete official record in the investigation which the Tariff Commission conducted under section 201(a) of the Antidumping Act of 1921, as amended, on portland cement from Portugal No. AA1921-22."
Although several questions have been raised by the parties in their briefs, the basic question presented pertains to the validity of the dumping duties that have been assessed. In essence, the answer depends upon whether the dumping duties were based upon a valid determination of injury made by the Tariff Commission.
The decision of the Tariff Commission which contains its "Determination of Injury" is not unanimous, and contains the dissenting statement of two Commission members. The Commission's decision contains a "Majority Statement of Reasons" and the views of the two dissenting commissioners. The divergence of opinion that prevailed among the members of the Tariff Commission may be said to represent the difference of view of the parties on the fundamental question whether an industry in the United States "is being or is likely to be injured" by the importation of portland gray cement from Portugal.
On the basis of its investigation the Commission determined that "an industry in the United States is being injured by reason of the importation of portland gray cement from Portugal at less than fair value within the meaning of the Antidumping Act, 1921, as amended."
A helpful factual background is found in the following portion of the "Majority Statement of Reasons" of the Commission:
The following paragraph, also from the "Majority Statement of Reasons", sets forth the Commission's answer to the contention of the importers that, although imported cement from Portugal was sold at less than fair value, an American industry was not being injured by such sales:
The "Majority Statement of Reasons" contains the following pertaining to the Commission's statutory responsibility:
The following paragraph from the statement of the two Commission members who dissented highlights the difference of opinion and approach to the question of injury to an industry in the United States:
Emphasis in original.
Appellants do not question the fact-finding power or discretion that has been lawfully vested in the Tariff...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pasco Terminals, Inc. v. United States
...See, e. g., Imbert Imports, Inc. v. United States, 475 F.2d 1189, 60 CCPA 123, 127, C.A.D. 1094 (1973); City Lumber Co. v. United States, 311 F.Supp. 340, 64 Cust.Ct. 826, 832, 834, A.R.D. 269 (1970), aff'd, 457 F.2d 991, 59 CCPA 89, In view of these and the following considerations, the co......
-
JC PENNEY COMPANY v. United States Dept. of Treasury
...v. United States, 71 F.2d 332, 21 C.C. P.A. 110 (C.C.P.A.1933) (upholding constitutionality of Antidumping Act); City Lumber Co. v. United States, 311 F.Supp. 340 (Cust.Ct.1970) (upholding constitutionality of imposition of dumping duties under Antidumping Act). 32 See, e. g., Abbott Labora......
-
Armstrong Bros. Tool Co. v. United States
...See, e. g., Imbert Imports, Inc. v. United States, 475 F.2d 1189 , 1192 60 CCPA 123, 127, C.A.D. 1094 (1973); City Lumber Co. v. United States, 64 Cust.Ct. 826, 832, 834, A.R.D. 269, 311 F.Supp. 340 (1970), aff'd, 457 F.2d 991, 59 CCPA 89, supra. Emphasis Again, in ASG Industries, Inc., et ......
-
Suwannee Steamship Company v. United States
...11718, 314 F.Supp. 784 (1970), aff'd, 67 Cust.Ct. 569, A.R. D. 294, 331 F.Supp. 1400 (1971), appeal pending; and City Lumber Co. et al. v. United States, 64 Cust.Ct. 826, A.R.D. 269, 311 F.Supp. 340 (1970), aff'd, 59 CCPA ___, C.A.D. 1045 (1972), for analogous holdings with respect to Tarif......