Wolff v. Benson, 14219.

Citation258 F.2d 428,103 US App. DC 334
Decision Date29 May 1958
Docket NumberNo. 14219.,14219.
PartiesSol M. WOLFF, et al., t/a S. M. Wolff Company, Appellants, v. Ezra T. BENSON, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, and United States Tariff Commission, Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

Messrs. Edwin G. Martin and Lowry N. Coe, Washington, D. C., for appellants.

Mr. Lionel Kestenbaum, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Asst. Atty. Gen. George C. Doub, Mr. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Mr. Samuel D. Slade, Atty., Dept. of Justice, were on the brief, for appellees. Mr. Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellees.

Before PRETTYMAN and WASHINGTON, Circuit Judges, and MADDEN, Judge, United States Court of Claims.1

PER CURIAM.

Appellants import dried figs and fig paste. In the District Court they alleged that subordinates of the Secretary of Agriculture have conspired with the California Fig Institute to devise a plan to restrict imports of dried figs and fig paste. The plan, it was asserted, was to promulgate a "Marketing Agreement and Order" for California dried figs under the Agricultural Adjustment Act2 and to use the same as a basis for the restrictions on imports. Appellants accordingly sought a judgment declaring the marketing agreement and order invalid, enjoining the Secretary from participating pendente lite in a Tariff Commission investigation of the impact of fig imports on the domestic market, enjoining the Tariff Commission from conducting such a hearing or reporting the results of the hearing to the President, and permanently enjoining the Secretary and the Commission from taking any steps to restrict imports of dried figs and fig paste in connection with or as a result of the federal marketing program. Upon motions for summary judgment the District Court dismissed appellants' complaint, on the ground that appellants had no standing to attack the Secretary's marketing order. We agree with the District Court.

Section 22 of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 19373 provides that, whenever the Secretary of Agriculture has reason to believe that any imports will render or tend to render ineffective any program undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, he shall so advise the President, who may then cause an investigation to be made by the United States Tariff Commission to determine the facts. On the basis of the investigation and the findings and recommendations of the Commission, the President may impose certain ad valorem fees or quantitative limitations on imports.

Pursuant to advice from the Secretary the President initiated an investigation of fig imports under Section 22. The Commission concluded that there was no basis for import restrictions during the 1956-57 season and submitted its report to the President. The President requested further investigation. The Commission...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Brandenfels v. Day
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 14 Febrero 1963
    ...Commission. Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States, 307 U.S. 125, 129-131, 59 S. Ct. 754, 83 L.Ed. 1147 (1939); Wolff v. Benson, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 334, 258 F.2d 428 (1958). The FTC has taken no action against appellant and, whatever investigation may now be under way, the nature of any c......
  • Hinton v. Udall
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 27 Junio 1966
    ...114 U.S.App.D.C. 374, 377, 316 F.2d 375, 378, cert denied, 375 U.S. 824, 84 S.Ct. 66, 11 L.Ed.2d 57 (1963); Wolff v. Benson, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 334, 335, 258 F.2d 428, 429 (1958); United Air Lines v. CAB, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 42, 228 F.2d 13 The Supreme Court cases using similar language cautionin......
  • District of Columbia v. Cities Service Oil Company, 14238.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • 29 Mayo 1958

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