stating that the statute’s object is “to impose not a penalty, but an amount of duty sufficient to equalize competitive conditions between the exporter and American industries affected”
How later courts described this case
- stating that the statute’s object is “to impose not a penalty, but an amount of duty sufficient to equalize competitive conditions between the exporter and American industries affected”
- noting Congress’s ex- pressed purpose in the Anti-Dumping Act of 1921 was to impose “an amount of duty sufficient to equalize competitive conditions”
- interpreting the precursor to 19 U.S.C. § 1673i (1982), current version at 19 U.S.C. § 1677h (Supp. III 1985)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GARRETT, Associate Judge (specially concurring).
I eoneur in the conclusion reached in these consolidated eases, and am in general agreement with the statement of facts and the reasoning of the opinion. Consequently I concur specially only to state that appellant C. J. Tower & Sons, in their assignments of error, have hero questioned the constitutionality of the Anti-Dumping Act of 1921 solely upon the grounds: (a) That it provides for the taking of property without due process of law because the duties provided therein are claimed to bo penal in character, and (b) that the duties “axe not uniform throughout the land.”
1 feel that these assignments of error are not well taken, but have given no consideration to any other theories respecting the constitutionality of the act, because, as presented before tMs court, such consideration was not required.