# C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States

> Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · February 5, 1934 · 71 F.2d 438

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9640606

## Case

- **Full name:** C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States; United States v. C. J. Tower & Sons
- **Court:** Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
- **Decided:** February 5, 1934
- **Citations:** 71 F.2d 438; 21 C.C.P.A. 417; 1934 CCPA LEXIS 1
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Garrett
- **Judges:** Graham, Bland, Hatfield, Garrett, Lenroot
- **Cited by:** 18 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9640606

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9640606. Public record. Not legal advice.