Document: 348 U.S. 351 75 S.Ct. 419 99 L.Ed. 383 The UNITED STATES of America and the Secretary Commerce as Successor Chairman United States Maritime Commission, Petitioners,v.CALIFORNIA EASTERN LINE, Inc. No. 263. Argued Feb. 10, 1955. Decided March 7, Mr. Oscar H. Davis, Washington, for petitioners. Harold B. Finn, New York City, respondent. Justice BLACK delivered opinion Court. 1 Renegotiation Act 1942 amended sets up departmental Tax Court procedures to save from burden 'excessive profits' made by private contractors under war contracts with Government 'Departments.'1 question in this case is whether an order entered that reviewable Appeals District Columbia Circuit. 2 In 1941 defined a 'Department' Act, was charged responsibility aiding British transport equipment supplies use World War II. Respondent, California Eastern Line, Inc., among others, asked Commission carry Red Sea area African campaign. After extensive negotiations respondent agreed on detailed contractual terms carriage. And it would be paid out funds appropriated Congress so-called Lend-Lease Act.2 It also understood written contract embodying only previously executed between Ministry Transport. charter after respondent's boat had already sailed its cargo. accordance agreement, about $351,000 Later chairman, conforming required procedure, determined should repay $164,000 profits.' Respondent took matter § 403(e)(1) which authorizes court 'to finally determine amount, if any, excessive provides 'such determination shall not reviewed or redetermined any agency.' But no finding at all profits. disposed whole fact holding law named party consequently renegotiable within Act. 17 T.C. 1325. 3 sought review Circuit broad grant jurisdiction 26 U.S.C. 1141, U.S.C.A. vests Courts 'exclusive decisions * *.'3 held 1141 does authorize renegotiation orders exception determinations profits states agency. Viewing issue decided coming nonreviewable category, dismissed. 93 U.S.App.D.C. 289, 211 F.2d 635. Ninth has construed differently, however, gives power whatever orders. French v. Contracts Price Adjustment Board, 182 560. Never having passed jurisdictional question, we granted certiorari decide it. 810, 59. 4 language enough justify cannot say because section originally primarily revenue matters inapplicable other justiciable entrusted Congress. As long ago 1946 interpreted authorizing orders.4 followed interpretation number later cases, including one.5 All these have recognized scope over narrowed part makes amounts excess profits, any. This reconciliation permissible basis, accordingly see reason upset practice grown Under practice, particular here unless 'the meaning Appeals, relying Macauley Waterman S. Corp., 327 540, 66 712, 90 839, was. On point disagree. 5 making must least two separate but interrelated questions: (1) involved (2) amount We primary, exclusive renegotiable. That result reached existence essential such determination. Waterman, did concerning reviewability 6 history make pretty clear selected handle cases Court's special familiarity kinds business accounting practices regard losses, etc. Thus easy understand why spelled meticulous clarity final nonreviewable. agree determinations. do category. even simply held, largely common principles law, there government renegotiate. nonexistence wholly irrelevant holding. Consequently kind decision therefore subject normal type authorized 1141. 7 Reversed. 8 DOUGLAS dissents. 56 Stat. 245, amended, 50 U.S.C.App. 1191, U.S.C.A.Appendix, 1191. 55 31, 22 §§ 411-413, 411-413. Internal Revenue Code 1939. Similar provisions now appear 7482 1954, Section contains exceptions general they are relevant here. Electrical Motors, Jones, 80 329, 153 134. Psaty & Fuhrman, Stimson, 87 47, 985; Lowell Wool By-Products Co. 89 U.S.AppD.C. 281, 192 405; Kun-Vise, 218, 195 198.

Category: 8