Court Opinion

ID: 9445701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:36:51.140978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:23.156482
License: Public Domain

WORLEY, Judge
(concurring).
My dissent in the Metropolitan case was based on the belief that the language in Section 350(a) (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, that “No proclamation shall be made increasing or decreasing by more than 50 per centum any rate of duty, however established, existing on January 1, 1945, * * * ” was applicable to all proclamations.
The Metropolitan case was decided in 1954. Even before then, however, the above section appears to have been interpreted by the executive branch as not applicable to “terminating” proclamations. Since Congress has extended the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act without indicating dissatisfaction with that interpretation, or with this court’s interpretation in the Metropolitan case, I must assume they are consistent with the congressional purposes and objectives, an£, accordingly, concur with the majority herein.