Opinion ID: 581353
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consistency with Law

Text: 82 Finally, Yamaha-America argues that the decision in ABC nowhere addressed the scope of the Secretary's power to promulgate the Regulation. Yamaha-America's Brief at 11-12. Yamaha-America argues in its reply brief that the focus of its exceeding authority claim here is that the Regulation is inconsistent with the Friendship Treaty and the Paris Convention which have the force of a statute and are the law of the land. Reply Brief of Appellant (filed Jan. 31, 1992) (Reply Brief) at 7 (citation omitted). But the Regulation would exceed the Secretary's authority under the treaties only to the extent that it deprives foreign corporations of national treatment under United States customs and trademark laws; as we have seen, the Regulation does nothing of the kind. 83 To the extent that Yamaha-America's claim that the Secretary exceeded his authority in promulgating the Regulation depends on the conclusion that section 526 prohibits such an interpretation, see Brief of Appellant at 11-12, that issue has been definitively settled by K Mart Corp. Yamaha-America relies on a passing reference in Osawa & Co. v. B & H Photo, 589 F.Supp. 1163 (S.D.N.Y.1984), to the effect that there exists a substantial question about whether Customs exceeded its authority under section 526 in promulgating the Regulation, see Reply Brief at 7 n. 4. 17 However, not only was this dicta, but Osawa was decided four years before K Mart Corp. If the Supreme Court's opinion in K Mart Corp. stands for anything, it is that the Secretary's Regulation was a permissible construction of section 526.