Source: https://openjurist.org/274/us/106
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:32:53+00:00

Document:
UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION et al.
Argued March 3, 4, 1927.
The Tariff Act of September 21, 1922, c. 356, § 315, 42 Stat. 858, 941 (Comp. St. §§ 5841c19-5841c24), vested in the President the power to adjust tariff duties, so as to equalize differences in costs of production here and abroad of articles wholly or in part the growth or product of this county, whenever an investigation by the Tariff Commission should reveal disparate costs. Such investigation is made a prerequisite to action by the President in proclaiming changes of rates. By executive order of October 7, 1922, it was provided that all petitions or applications for action or relief under the so-called flexible sections of the Tariff Act of 1922 should be filed with the Tariff Commission.
In October, 1922, the American Nitrogen Products Company, a corporation of the state of Washington, filed with the United States Tariff Commission a petition praying for a 50 per cent. increase in the duty imposed by the Tariff Act of 1922 upon imported sodium nitrite. The following March the Tariff Commission, for the purpose of assisting the President in the exercise of the powers delegated to him by the act of 1922, ordered an investigation of the differences in cost of production of sodium nitrite at home and abroad, and of other pertinent facts and conditions. It was further ordered that all parties interested should be given an opportunity to be present and produce evidence at a public hearing to be held at a date to be fixed later.
Plaintiff in error is engaged in the importation of nitrogen products into the United States, which it sells on commission. It represents in the United States as exclusive agent the Norwegian Hydro-Electric Nitrogen Corporation, the only manufacturer of sodium nitrite in Norway. Representatives of the commission in the course of its investigation proceeded to Norway and Germany, and sought from the Norwegian company and from German manufacturers data showing the cost of production of sodium nitrite in those countries. This was refused. The commission's experts were permitted to examine the books and records of American manufacturers, obtaining information of the domestic cost of production and other relevant data. This information was given under promise that it should be treated as confidential and upon the assurance that the rules of the commission and section 708 of the Revenue Act of September 8, 1916, c. 463, 39 Stat. 756, 798 (Comp. St. § 5326i), so required. Section 708 prohibits the commission from revealing 'the trade secrets or processes' of which it might learn in the course of its investigations.
Plaintiff then filed with the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia a petition for mandamus, directing the Tariff Commission to disclose the information which it had obtained concerning the cost of production of sodium nitrite by American and foreign manufacturers, and directing the commissioners to hold a public hearing at which plaintiff should be given an opportunity to cross examine the investigators and experts of the commission, and witnesses with respect to such data, to offer evidence in opposition, and to present arguments against the American company's petition. The commission interposed an answer setting up that section 708 of the Revenue Act forbade the Tariff Commission from disclosing the information sought. To this answer the plaintiff demurred. The demurrer was overruled, and final judgment was entered dismissing the petition.
The case is properly here on writ of error, under section 250 of the Judicial Code (Comp. St. § 1227), before the amendment of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 941); defendant in error having by its answer drawn in question the construction of section 708 of the Revenue Act. Santa Fe Pac. R. R. v. Work, 267 U. S. 511, 45 S. Ct. 400, 69 L. Ed. 764; Brady v. Work, 263 U. S. 435, 44 S. Ct. 168, 68 L. Ed. 375; Goldsmith v. Board of Tax Appeals, 270 U. S. 117, 46 S. Ct. 215, 70 L. Ed. 494.
We conclude that the case had become moot before the review below and that it is unnecessary for us to indulge in a discussion of the merits. Under section 315, subds. (c) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1922 (Comp. St. §§ 5841c21, 5841c23), the President is given authority to require an investigation by the commission and it is its duty to make one when so required. There is no other provision of the act placing any duty on the commission to make such an investigation. When not so requested by the President, action by the commission is discretionary. Under its rules, it is optional with it whether it will employ its resources for investigations sought by an interested party. Section 703 of the Revenue Act of September 8, 1916 (Comp. St. § 5326d), under which the commission was created, requires it to make certain specified studies of the administration and operation of the tariff laws of the United States and tariff relations of the United States with foreign countries, on request of the President and certain committees of the two houses of Congress. That act has no relevancy here, since, unlike the act of 1922, it contains no provisions for hearings in conjunction with the investigations there authorized.
All relief sought here is incidental to the hearing before the commission on the cost of production of sodium nitrite. The commission conducted its inquiry and held these hearings to aid the President in determining whether the difference in cost of that product in this and in foreign countries should be equalized by revising the tariff under section 315(a) of the act of 1922 (Comp. St. § 5841c19). The hearing pending when the plaintiff's petition was filed has been concluded, as it lawfully might, since there was no injunction or restraining order and the commission's action was taken after the determination of the Supreme Court of the District in its favor. We need not consider here the effect upon judicial review of an attempt to evade or forestall a decision adverse to the commission. The commission has filed its report with the President, and the President has made his decision and proclamation fixing the revised tariff. Either may revive the investigation, but neither is under a duty to do so. Assuming that the plaintiff is entitled to a hearing of the character demanded whenever an investigation is had, which we do not decide, it would be an idle ceremony to require such a hearing upon an investigation which we may not command and which may never be made. In such circumstances there can be no effectual relief by mandamus and the Court of Appeals should have remanded the cause with directions to dismiss the petition as moot. Brownlow v. Schwartz, 261 U. S. 216, 43 S. Ct. 263, 67 L. Ed. 620; Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651, 653, 16 S. Ct. 132, 40 L. Ed. 293.

References: § 315
 § 5326
 § 1227
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5326
 § 5841
 v. 
 v.