Document: 393 U.S. 199 89 S.Ct. 361 21 L.Ed.2d 344 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.The CONCENTRATED PHOSPHATE EXPORT ASSOCIATION, Inc., et al. No. 29. Argued Oct. 24, 1968. Decided Nov. 25, Warren Christopher, Deputy Atty. Gen. Dept. of Justice, for appellant. Samuel W. Murphy, Jr., New York City, appellees. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion Court. 1 Involved in this case are 11 sales concentrated phosphate made between 1961 and 1966 by appellee association. The was supplied association's members,1 which all producers fertilizer, then shipped to Republic Korea under United States foreign aid program. Government, a civil antitrust complaint filed on December 21, 1964, contended that concerted activities association its members regard these violated § Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209 (1890), as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. 1. Appellees defended ground, inter alia, their were exempted from liability 2 Webb-Pomerene 40 517 (1918), U.S.C. 62,2 'act(s) done course export trade.' trial court held Act did immunize appellees' conduct, D.C., 273 F.Supp. 263 (1967), dismissed complaint. Government perfected direct appeal Court Expediting 32 823 (1903), Probable jurisdiction noted, 390 1001, 88 1245, 20 102 (1968). I. We met at outset with contention is now moot. Appellees' argument rests two events occurred after had been submitted District On January 1, 1967, Agency International Development (AID), State Department agency charge program, amended regulations preclude associations bidding certain procurement contracts whenever limited suppliers.3 According appellees, new regulation it uneconomical continue operation,4 since large proportion AID-financed American sources.5 Accordingly, 28, dissolved itself.6 dissolution, we told, moot case. 3 Two factors make untenable. First all, not only defendant sought injunctive relief against well; they be prohibited forming any without approval continuing effect prices jointly agreed upon. Therefore, even if dissolution would have impossible frame effective party, here there no such difficulty. Secondly, AID does apply former might bid. Whenever bidders eligible, still permits compete. In fact, eligible transactions gave rise suit. however much may reduce practical importance case, completely remove controversy. Absent prayed for, appellees free act concert situations where contends must 4 test mootness cases stringent one. Mere voluntary cessation allegedly illegal conduct case; did, courts compelled leave '(t)he * return his old ways.' v. T. Grant Co., 345 629, 632, 73 894, 897, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953); see, e.g., Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 290, 17 540, 41 1007 (1897). A become subsequent absolutely clear wrongful behavior could reasonably expected recur. But own statement them engage further joint operations. Such statement, standing alone, cannot suffice satisfy heavy burden persuasion upon those shoes. U.S., 633, 894. Of open show, remand, likelihood violations sufficiently remote unnecessary. Id., 633—636, This matter judge. technically moot, an has properly taken, choice but decide it. II. 5 involved simple cash purchases Korea.7 Not financed Government; retained control over every stage. 6 controlled impressive network international treaties agreements, well statutes, regulations, administrative procedures. process, revealed stipulated record, rather involved. It began when funds appropriated Congress. Those allocated various development programs AID, accordance provisions applicable statutes AID's assessments priorities. money process simply Seoul, used wished. most never left country. series authorized request finance 'eligible commodities.'8 complicated 'Procurement Authorization Application' prepared form Korean signature. application sets forth goods purchased also detailed specifications quality, delivery plans, procedures, explaining Korea's need goods. Even though officials obviously participated drafting 'requests,' way obligated approve them. agreement specifically states 'may decline specific commodity or service when, judgment, financing inconsistent purposes grant Foreign Assistance 1961, amended.' When each transaction approved, Authorization' issued AID; subject specify procedures followed awarding contracts.9 contained authorization specified bank pay procured. 7 After chosen what purchased, either methods used. cases, itself let contracts, through General Services Administration. other nine formal letting performed Office Supply (OSROK). performing task, Koreans AID. invitation bids so circulated All documents English, criteria selecting winning contractors carefully defined advance. An abstract received notice naming contractor selected sent Washington. Finally, letter credit issued, supplier paid, payor reimbursed Treasury. consigned OSROK, AID—as last precaution—reserved right vest title 'such action necessary assure compliance Congress.' 22 CFR 201.44 8 asked whether sort constitute trade,' within meaning exemption Act.10 Although statute books half century, first time called interpret words 'export Upon full consideration language, purpose, legislative history statute, reverse judgment below. III. 9 passed 'to encourage our manufacturers extend H.R.Rep. 1118, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., (1916). Congress felt firms needed power order compete cartels. while willing create anti-trust laws serve narrow created hedged avoid substantial injury domestic interests. evidently economic increase foreigh trade depriving consumers main advantages competition. 10 reading confirmed both structure history. contains number provisos designed protect interests combinations authorizing. No 'in restraint States,' 2, 62; trade' exclude, among things, 'selling consumption 61; forbidden enter into 'which artificially intentionally enhances depresses *, substantially lessens competition otherwise restrains therein,' 62. more explicit. During hearings bill, one Congressman, Charles C. Carlin Virginia, stated clearly later dominant themes floor debate. question addressed Chairman Federal Trade Commission, who testifying support he said: 12 'I am frank say personally I sympathy foreigner pays products; like see get largest price possible, indirection going set up system fix higher eventually home, combination suggested think you can very dangerous one.' Hearings before House Committee Judiciary H.R. 16707, 13 same theme reiterated Act's sponsors. Senator Pomerene said bluntly, '(W)e reached high plane business morals will permit us privileges peoples earth outside States.' 55 Cong.Rec. 2787 (1917). And Congressman Webb declared, should anybody anything purpose capturing world, do punish people doing it.' 3580 14 atmosphere, passed. doing; thought exports foreigners benefits firms, significant injuring consumers. Cf. Alkali Export Assn. States, 325 196, 211, 65 1120, 1128, 1554 (1945). validity question, quite relevant interpreting language chose. meant insulate initiated, controlled, just because government nominal 'purchaser.' not. laws, bound conceptions contract law. Simpson Union Oil Co. California, 377 13, 84 1051, 98 (1964). look reality transactions. Here, although fertilizer shipments formally participation overwhelmingly feature. noncompetitive pricing fell, purchaser, taxpayer. was, essence, furnishing Korea. commodity, determined amount contracting paid bill. elements transaction, were, comparison, insignificant. stretches neither nor determine 'exports.' 16 contend contrary result competing suppliers. Evidently, therefore fall class intended allow associations. already given suppliers great competitive battle firms. governing requires preference procurement. 604, 75 439, 2354. none major trading nations world compete; essentially underdeveloped countries. To additional stimulus able strains credulity. impact allowing desire exports; place shoulders whatever be, framers intend Americans deprived firms.11 Since aspects American, Korean, hold Act. issues resolution Reversed remanded. 18 HARLAN took part decision 19 WHITE, whom STEWART joins, dissenting. majority holds today firm Florida Korea, solicited market,1 'exports' 516 61. Statessupplied purchases, expenditure. obliged repay directly, required aside proceeds resale 'counterpart funds' spent ways prescribed States.2 conforms plain word underlying defines 'exported, being exported 61 (1964), than 800,000 tons directly ordinary sense, 'goods' 'exported refer receiving countries 'importers' E.g., 201.42 (1968).3 found encouraged, least tolerated, Nor exclusion definition sold 'for 61, discussed majority, parties stipulated, consumed purely 'restrained' way, 'enhanced' 'depressed.'4 Given clarity resort Unexcelled Chemical Corp. 59, 64, 580, 583, 821 (1953). lends indeed leads conclusion. asserts ending impairing That correct. recognized ringed about restrictions keep industry competitive. trusts competitors. They offer fill orders single fill; maintain staffs touch demand cheaply seller; advertising distribution costs generally lower separate firms.5 Having findings, concluded allowed combine achieve costs, prices, comprehensive service, equal footing shipments. 23 this, consumption, objection formation graphically illustrated fact case6 successful market, admits absent. precisely enable meet 24 Moreover, kindness taxpayer carve out exception forbidding assumptions savings organization cartels service.7 Without associations, underbid Association bidding, captured 18% business. Under opinion, taxpayers paying dollars buy obtained employing workers. 25 explicitly lead lower, higher, basis efforts companies laws. charged duty faithfully execute honor exemption, challenge facile assertions 'chauvinistic.' Certainly equipped empowered rests. 'export' based Court's notions sound policy contradict congressional combat If ever justified, Appellee-members Cyanamid R. Grace & Minerals Corp., Tennessee Mobil during entire period 1967. 'Nothing sections 1—7 shall construed declaring entered sole engaging actually engaged solely trade, association, provided agreement, competitor association: Provided, not, elsewhere, understanding, conspiracy, commodities therein.' Section 'solely commerce goods, wares, merchandise exported, Territory thereof nation; deemed include production, manufacture, selling resale, thereof, merchandise, resale.' 31 Fed.Reg. 16693 (1966), codified §§ 201.01(v), 201.52(a)(7), Appendix D applies commodities. Motion Affirm Dismiss 5, 14—15. See Operations Report, Fiscal Year p. 74. percentage coming sources exceeds regulation. dictated supra, n. 4, argue related November 9, contest status 1962. One exchange funds; special stabilization fund granted States. use latter fully grants here. particular limitation list record Program Agreement, dated 29, 1965. 108, 116. applied earlier here, examples—and complete compilation—of agreements included contain limitations give equivalent powers. See, 81. These collected 201 raises questions intimate scope. There brief mention debates existence loans European whose purchasing reduced prices. 2789 isolated statute. America's World War bear little resemblance modern repaid, typical today's challenged Administration finds distinction significant. military establishments public works. available 'as requested.' Indeed, statistics relating balance payments Commerce, Bureau Census, Statistical Abstract 1968, 669, 801; 30.1 seq. S.Rep.No.1056, 2d Sess. (1917); H.R.Rep.No.1118, (1916); 17350 Senate Interstate 44 Thirteen challenges apply. 56 110—111 (remarks Kellogg).

Category: 7