President return this report to the Tariff Commission and that he request the Commission to reconsider the matter and report to him a definite finding of cost difference in compliance with the requirements of the statute" (p. 12 of report). Nothing has happened since that time in connection with this proceeding and no action was taken as a result of the investigation. SECTION 337. UNFAIR PRACTICES IN IMPORT TRADE Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1337) declares unlawful unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States when the effect or tendency is to destroy or substantially injure an industry efficiently and economically operated in the United States or to prevent the establishment of such an industry or to restrain or monopolize trade and commerce in the United States. Upon a finding of such unfair method or act, the articles so concerned are excluded from entry. Most of the proceedings undertaken under this section have been in connection with unfair competition, such as passing off of foreignmade goods as the product of a domestic manufacturer or sold under well-known domestic brand. However the act is much broader and would permit proceedings against the same type of unfair acts as constitute dumping. When the California Almond Growers Exchange, after failure to obtain action on an antidumping application, sought relief under section 337, the Commission declined to act on the ground that the Antidumping Act provided a more specific method of dealing with dumping and that the remedy under that act should be pursued. A brief and petition for reconsideration on this subject are also attached. These contain a more detailed discussion of the statute, its history and the decisions thereunder. CONCLUSION From the foregoing review of existing remedies, it is evident that no one, or combination of them, affords the prompt and adequate relief against excessive imports that is accorded by the provisions of section 104 of the Defense Production Act, for example. What is needed is a remedy stated in clear and unmistakable terms that cannot be ignored or misinterpreted and that is of a character that does not require a prolonged time-consuming procedure as is now required under section 22. For all of these reasons it is respectfully urged that section 22 and other relief sections discussed above be so amended as to assure their effectiveness and timely application when relief is needed and justified. We feel that the Simpson bill (H. R. 4294), with some clarification and strengthening of its sections 7 and 8 dealing with agricultural products, will substantially accomplish that purpose. I would like to comment just briefly on the position the administration has taken for a "standstill" as described by Secretary Dulles, or a standpat position. However, the administration is inconsistent. It wants to repeal Section 104, and it wants a customs simplification bill which has been repeatedly described as an act designed to increase 32604-53-54 imports. If the administration wants a stand-pat position, it should be consistent and stand pat across the board. The administration says that the Simpson bill would be very bad, but as Congressman Curtis of Missouri has brought out several times in the hearings, none of the witnesses for the Administration have been able, with the exception of Section 13, dealing with oil, lead, and zinc, to say why any one section would do any harm to the existing trade agreements program. The study commission recommended by the President we feel, would constitute a violation of the basic principle of our government, that is, separation of legislative and executive powers. It would create a commission to recommend legislation composed of six members of Congress and 5 men appointed by the President. The Constitution specifically states that the control of foreign commerce shall be exclusively exercised by the Congress. To make a part legislative and part executive commission, to create such a commission for making such a study, we think, would be a violation of the separation of powers and would interfere with the normal functioning of this committee and the Congress on legislation affecting the control of foreign commerce. Foreign commerce is not a power designated to the President as a part of his overall control of foreign policy. The Constitution specifically withheld that for Congress as a domestic matter to be exclusively controlled by the Congress. That completes my statement. Mr. JENKINS (presiding). Any questions? Mr. JENKINS. All right, Mr. Eberharter. Mr. EBERHARTER. Mr. Breckinridge, is Mr. Loos still a member of the law firm which you mention in this statement of yours? Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. No, sir. He is on leave of absence, on service in the Department of Agriculture. Mr. ÊBERHARTER. It is still the firm of Pope, Ballard and Loos? Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. That is correct, sir. Mr. EBERHARTER. You still go under that name, even though he is on leave of absence. Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. Yes, sir. Mr. EBERHARTER. I think that is perfectly legitimate. Mr. Loos is now Solicitor for the Secretary of Agriculture? Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. Yes, sir; that is right. Mr. EBERHARTER. And Mr. Loos, as a member of this firm, has appeared on numerous occasions before the United States Tariff Commission representing the same groups that you are representing here today? Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. In the past I believe that is true, sir. Mr. EBERHARTER. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Utt will inquire. Mr. UTT. In spite of what has just gone into the record about Mr. Loos being the Solicitor now for the Department of Agriculture, your statement here represents the opinion of the various associations, trade associations, mentioned in this statement, does it not? Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. That is correct. I am appearing as an individual for the Sunkist Growers and the others mentioned here, presenting their views. Mr. UTT. And your considered opinion for them, on their behalf, is that while the export market is very important, the most important market in the world to preserve is the American domestic market? Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. That is correct, sir. These organizations also want to export, and they are going to do their best to export as much as they can. But they do not feel that we should try to do that at the expense of our fellow Americans, with imports which would injure them. Mr. UTT. And is it not possible if we should gain a greater export market it would not do us much good if we lost a relative amount of our domestic market by that process? Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. No, sir; it wouldn't, because the domestic market is much more important; and as to the export market, as a rule, prices are usually lower than in the larger domestic market. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that my full statement be in the record and that the attachments be included in the record also. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. We thank you for your appearance. Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. We thank you very much for the opportunity to appear, Mr. Chairman. (The attachment entitled "Legal Duties and Functions Under the Antidumping Act, 1921" was previously submitted and appears on p. 520. The other attachments to Mr. Breckinridge's statement referred to are as follows:) BEFORE THE UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION A COMPLAINT UNDER OATH ALLEGING UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION AND UNFAIR ACTS IN THE IMPORTATION OF ALMONDS INTO THE UNITED STATES, PARTICULARLY AGAINST ITALIAN AND SPANISH IMPORTS APPLICATION FOR IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION AND EXCLUSION FROM ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES OF IMPORTED ALMONDS Under the provisions of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 The complaint of the above-named complainant, California Growers Exchange, respectfully shows: I. Complainant, California Almond Growers Exchange, is a cooperative organization of over 5,000 American almond growers who produce, process, and market approximately 70 percent of all almonds grown in the United States. Complainant's principal place of business is located at Sacramento, Calif. II. The undersigned, on behalf of D. R. Bailey, general manager of the California Almond Growers Exchange, does hereby allege under oath: (A) Spanish, Italian, and other foreign exporters and importers of almonds into the United States have engaged in and are currently attempting to engage in : 1. Unfair methods of competition, and 2. Unfair acts-in the importation of almonds into the United States, and (B) That such unfair methods of competition and such unfair practices in import trade tend to substantially injure the American almond growers and the American almond industry, which is and has been efficiently and economically operated in the United States. III. Briefly, the facts on which the allegations of this complaint are based are: 1. That Italy and Spain have in the recent past sold and currently threaten to sell almonds in the United States at less than their fair value and/or cost of production and make up the difference through various improper exchange transactions, through three-cornered or multiple-cornered barter transactions and through various other methods of selling almonds in the United States at less than their fair value and/or cost of production, under circumstances which constitute unfair methods of competition and unfair practices in import trade which are declared unlawful by section 337 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1337 (a)). 2. Section 337 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1337 (c)) provides that: **" as herein "The Tariff Commission shall make such investigation requested. 2 3. Concerning the effect or tendency of these unfair-trade practices and unfair methods of competition in the importation of almonds into the United States to substantially injure the American almond industry, it is sufficient to state that because of the numerous recent investigations of the American almond industry and almond import trade conducted by the Tariff Commission indicating such to be the case, it is unnecessary to give a detailed statement of the almond industry facts in this complaint. However, stated briefly such unfair trade practices and unfair methods of competition tend: (a) To injure and nullify the attainment of the objectives of the Federal marketing agreement and order program supervised and operated by the United States Secretary of Agriculture, under which he has declared 25 percent of the American almond production to be surplus and required that such surplus almonds be disposed of in noncompetitive channels. (b) To injure and nullify the recent action of this Tariff Commission and the President in imposing a tariff quota on the importation of almonds, which tariff quota was designed to prevent injury to the Federal almond support programs conducted by the Department of Agriculture and to prevent injury to the American almond growers. The Tariff Commission has already officially found that even fair imports tend to nullify the United States Department of Agriculture programs and to injure the American almond growers. (c) To nullify the recent section 32 diversion program of the United States Department of Agriculture whereby the Department of Agriculture is spending over two million dollars of the American taxpayers money to subsidize the diversion of surplus almonds to the production of oil and for feeding to cattle. Recently, and at the very time this complaint is being filed with this Commission, an official delegation from Spain, under the auspices of the Spanish Government itself, is present in this country seeking ways and means to dump upon the American market 2 million pounds of Spanish almonds at prices far below fair value. The very threat of this supply of Spanish almonds, offered below fair value, overhanging the United States market-to say nothing of the additional quantities of both Spanish and Italian almonds available for export to this country-has been and is seriously disrupting the American almond market and substantially injuring the American almond industry. Under all these circumstances it is patently obvious that even the slightest unfair trade practice or unfair method of competition (and far more is here involved) utilized in the importation of almonds into the United States will cause serious injury to the American almond industry, an efficiently and economically operated industry, and compound the injury already being caused to American almond growers, to the Government support programs and to the American taxpayers generally. A detailed presentation of the facts and evidence in support of these allegations is contained in the attached brief presented today to the Secretary of the Treasury. This brief addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury, hereby made a part of this complaint and application, is attached as Appendix A. IV. Pending the investigation and hearing by the Tariff Commission herein and a final determination of the facts in this case, it is requested that the Tariff Commission recommend to the President that he request the Secretary of the Treasury to forbid entry of Spanish, Italian, and other foreign almonds into the United States until this investigation is completed, pursuant to the provisions of section 337 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 which reads as follows: "Whenever the President has reason to believe that any article is offered or sought to be offered for entry into the United States in violation of this section but has not information sufficient to satisfy him thereof, the Secretary of Treasury shall, upon his request in writing, forbid entry thereof until such investigation as the President may deem necessary shall be completed; except that such articles shall be entitled to entry under bond prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Attached as exhibit No. 1 is copy of a letter to the President, dated April 3, 1952, requesting such temporary exclusion of almonds, except under bond, pending completition of this investigation. The almond industry of the United States is faced with an extreme emergency and this complaint has of necessity been prepared under severe limitations of time. However, it is earnestly requested that the Tariff Commission order an investigation and call a public hearing immediately on the matters above set forth. Representatives of this complainant of other United States growers and packers of almonds will be prepared to present a full documentation by all evidence available to them. It is also requested that the Tariff Commission, through sources available to it, investigate and evaluate other evidence pertaining hereto in foreign countries which is not readily available to the American almond growers. Wherefore complainant, California Almond Growers Exchange, prays that this Commission forthwith make an investigation of the matters alleged herein, pursuant to section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, hold public hearings thereon, issue its findings on all the evidence presented, and transmit the final findings of this Commission to the President of the United States, and prays for such other and additional relief as the Commission shall deem proper in the premises. premises. Respectfully submitted in behalf of D. R. Bailey, general manager, California Almond Growers Exchange. JOHN BRECKINRIDGE, Karl D. Loos, Lewe B. Martin, John F. Doneland, of counsel. BEFORE THE UNITED STATES TARIFF COMMISSION PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION A COMPLAINT UNDER OATH ALLEGING UNFAIR METHODS OF COMPETITION AND UNFAIR ACTS IN THE IMPORTATION OF ALMONDS INTO THE UNITED STATES, PARTICULARLY AGAINST ITALIAN AND SPANISH IMPORTS Reapplication for Immediate Investigation and Exclusion From Entry Into the United States of Imported Almonds Under the provisions of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 The California Almond Growers Exchange, petitioner, on April 3 filed a complaint alleging unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of almonds into the United States, particularly against Italian and Spanish imports. The complaint alleged acts within the purview of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. By letter dated April 10, 1952, petitioner was notified that the complaint had been dismissed without investigation or hearing on the grounds that apparently the unfair acts alleged were covered by the Anti-Dumping Act of 1921. Petitioner hereby requests that the Tariff Commission reconsider its decision to dismiss the complaint and grant petitioner a hearing for the purpose of proving its allegations. Petitioner is informed and believes that the unfair acts alleged in its complaint are covered by section 337 of the Tariff Act. In support of its conclusion petitioner has attached hereto a memorandum of points and authorities. In the event the Commission adheres to its position, petitioner requests that the Commission set forth more fully and completely the reasons on which the Commission reached its conclusions. Specifically petitioner asks that the following questions be considered: 1. Whether the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to support its claim for relief? 2. Whether the complaint was considered frivolous in that there is no basis for bringing the complaint? 3. Whether complaint was dismissed solely because the facts indicate petitioner has a remedy under the Anti-Dumping Act of 1921? 4. Whether the complaint should be dismissed even though another less adequate remedy has actually been invoked and relief granted is found to be inadequate? |