Court Opinion

ID: 9640671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:11:44.429011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:31.906919
License: Public Domain

GARRETT, Associate Judge
(specially concurring).
I am compelled, as a matter of reason, to agree that the doctrine upheld by the majority in the ease of Re Frischer & Co., Inc., et al. v. United States, 17 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 494, T. D. 43964 (to which I respectfully dissented), is controlling of the issue presented in the instant case. I do not, however, agree to all forms of expression, nor to all assertions of the present majority opinion. I shall not attempt the fruitless task of detailing the matters upon which I disagree, since in the main they are matters of form rather than of substance.
I do feel impelled to state that, in my judgment, the issues before us do not require any declaration by us asi to the duty of the ■ President in the event some court of competent jurisdiction declares invalid a patent upon which an embarg-o has been predicated. Our jurisdiction under section 337 (19 USCA § 1337) extends alone to a review of the report of the Tariff Commission, and that upon questions of law only, and we have nothing to do in the instant proceeding with defining the President’s duties. Under the section the President may act upon the report of the Tariff Commission, or he may act independently of it. I am unable to see wherein it is incumbent upon this court, under the limited duty which the statute devolves upon it, to essay a declaration as to what the duty of the Executive may be under some possible future condition.