¹ Section 303 (a) provides in relevant part:“(1) Whenever any country, dependency, colony, province, or other political subdivision of government, person, partnership, association, cartel, or corporation, shall pay or bestow, directly or indirectly, any bounty or grant upon the manufacture or production or export of any article or merchandise manufactured or produced in such country, dependency, colony, province, or other political subdivision of government, then upon the importation of such article or merchandise into the United States, whether the same shall be imported directly from the country of production or otherwise, and whether such article or merchandise is imported in the same condition as when exported from the country of production or has been changed in condition by remanufacturo or otherwise, there shall be levied and paid, in all such cases, in addition to any duties otherwise imposed, a duty equal to the net amount of such bounty or grant, however the same be paid or bestowed. “(5) The Secretary shall from time to time ascertain and determine, or estimate, the net amount of each such bounty or grant, and shall declare the net amount so determined or estimated. “(6) The Secretary shall make all regulations he deems necessary for the identification of articles and merchandise subject to duties under this section and for the assessment and collection of such duties. All determinations by the Secretary under this section, and all determinations by the Commission under subsection (b)(1) of this section (whether affirmative or negative) shall be published in the Federal Register.” 19 U. S. C. § 1303 (a) (Supp. V, 1975).

² See App. 12-13, 30-31; An Outline of Japanese Taxes 128-129 (Tax Bureau, Japanese Ministry of Finance, 1976). For the products at issue here, the rate of taxation apparently ranges from 5 to 20%. See App.13-14; An Outline of Japanese Taxes, supra,at 131.

³ For purposes of this opinion, we adopt the convention followed by the parties and use the term “remission” to encompass both the exemption of exports from initial taxation and the refund to the exporter of any taxes already paid.

⁴ The Secretary of the Treasury has delegated the authority to make countervailing duty determinations to the Commissioner of Customs, subject to the Secretary's approval. See 19 CFR § 159.47 (1977). 5 The products included television receivers, radio receivers, radiophonograph combinations, radio-television-phonograph combinations, radiotape recorder combinations, record players and phonographs complete with amplifiers and speakers, tape recorders, tape players, and color television picture tubes. See 37 Fed. Reg. 100S7, App. A (1972), as amended, 37 Fed. Reg. 11487 (1972).

⁶ The notice stated in relevant part that “on the basis of the … facts gathered and the investigation conducted pursuant to … Customs Regulations … a final determination is hereby made … that … no bounty or grant is being paid or bestowed, directly or indirectly, within the meaning of section 303 … upon the … exportation of certain consumer electronic products from Japan.” 41 Fed. Reg. 1298 (1976).

⁷ Suit was filed pursuant to a provision, enacted in 1975, authorizing American manufacturers, producers, and wholesalers to seek review in the Customs Court of administrative decisions not to impqse countervailingduties under § 303. Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, § 516 (d), 19 U. S. C. § 1516(d) (Supp. V, 1975).

⁸ Section 5 of the Tariff Act of July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 205, provided in full: “That whenever any country, dependency, or colony shall pay or bestow, directly or indirectly, any bounty or grant upon the exportation of any article or merchandise from such country, dependency, or colony, and such article or merchandise is dutiable under the provisions of this Act, then upon the importation of any such article or merchandise into the United States, whether the same shall be imported directly from the country of production or otherwise, and whether such article or merchandise is imported in the same condition as when exported from the country of production or has been changed in condition by remanufacture or otherwise, there shall be levied and paid, in all such cases, in addition to the duties otherwise imposed by this Act, an additional duty equal to the net amount of such bounty or grant, however the same be paid or bestowed. The net amount of all such bounties or grants shall be from time to time ascertained, determined, and declared by the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall make all needful regulations for the identification of such articles and merchandise and for the assessment and collection of such additional duties.” The current version of §303 represents the fifth re-enactment of the 1897 provision without any changes relevant here. Tariff Act of 1909, § 6, 36 Stat. 85; Tariff Act of 1913, § IV (E), 38 Stat. 193; Tariff Act of 1922, § 303, 42 Stat. 935; Tariff Act of 1930, § 303, 46 Stat. 687; Trade Act of 1974, § 331 (a), 88 Stat. 2049.

⁹ There is no dispute here regarding either the nonexcessive nature of the remission or the indirect nature of the tax. Moreover, although the Department did not so state in the notice of final determination, see n. 6, supra,petitioner does not dispute that the Department's decision in this case was based on its longstanding position that the nonexcessive remission of an indirect tax is not a bounty or grant.

¹⁰ See, e. g.,T. D. 19729, 2 Synopsis of Decisions 157 (1898); T. D. 20039, 2 Synopsis of Decisions 534 (1898); T. D. 43634, 56 Treas. Dec. 342 (1929); T. D. 49355,73 Treas. Dec. 107 (1938).

¹¹ The proviso specified “[t]hat the importer of sugar produced in a foreign country, the Government of which grants such direct or indirect bounties, may be relieved from this additional duty under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, in case said importer produces a certificate of said Government that no indirect bounty has been received upon said sugar in excess of the tax collected upon the beet or cane from which it was produced,and that no direct bounty has been or shall be paid … .” 28 Stat. 521 (emphasis added).

¹² The figures of 38$ and 270 per 100 pounds apparently represented the amount of direct bounty paid upon exportation. See, e. g.,30 Cong. Rec, at 1722 (letter from Treasury Department). Petitioner argues that the Senate must have intended the term “bounty” to include nonexcessive remissions of indirect taxes, since Germany collected a tax on the output of sugar factories that was not remitted upon exportation and yet was not subtracted from the figures of 380 and 270 cited as the “bounties” paid by Germany. The sole evidence cited by petitioner to show that Germany in fact collected such a tax is an exhibit to the testimony of a single witness during hearings conducted by the Housein 1896. See Tariff Hearings before the House Committee on Ways and Means, 54th Cong., 2d Sess., 617-618. We have been unable to find any references to this tax anywhere in the Senate debates; moreover, to the extent that anyone contemplated the existence of German taxes that were not remitted upon exportation, the assumption appears to have been that they would be deducted from the 380 and 270 figures in determining the net amount of the bounty to be countervailed. The following exchange between Senators Allison and Vest is illustrative: “Mr. VEST. What … is the amount of export bounty, taking out taxes, etc., granted by Germany? “Mr. ALLISON… . Of course it can not exceed three-eighths of a cent a pound—thirty-eight one-hundredths on refined sugar—nor can it exceed twenty-seven one-hundredths upon raw sugar. But it may be very much less.” 30 Cong. Rec, at 1721. We note in any event that the amount of the tax cited by petitioner was less than 20 per 100 pounds, see Tariff Hearings, supra,at 617, whereas the consumption tax—which concededly was remitted upon exportation and yet not added to the figures of 380 and 270—was in the vicinity of $2.16 per 100 pounds.

¹³ Article VI (3) of the GATT, adopted in 1947, 61 Stat. A24, provides that “[n]o product … imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be subject to … countervailing duty by reason of the exemption of such product from … taxes borne by the like product when destined for consumption in the country of origin or exportation, or by reason of the refund of such … taxes.” The Government does not contend that the GATT provision would supersede § 303 in the event of conflict between the two. Brief for the United States 19 n. 11.

¹⁴ See, e. g.,Marks & Malmgren, Negotiating Nontariff Distortions to Trade, 7 L. & Policy in Int'l Bus. 327, 351-355 (1975); The United States Submission on Border Tax Adjustments to Working Party No. 4 of the Council on Border Tax Adjustments, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1966), reprinted in App. 93-116; Paper Submitted by Petty, John R., Assn't Sec'y of the Treasury, Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Canadian Tax Foundation (1968), reprinted in App. 117-138.Google Scholar Both the Secretary and GATT apparently consider remissions of direct taxes (e. g.,income taxes) to be countervailable export subsidies. See Brief for the United States 18 n. 10, 37-38; GATT, Basic Instruments and Selected Documents, 9th Supp., at 186-187 (1961).

¹⁵ Petitioner also relies on language in G. S. Nicholas & Co.v. United States,249 U. S. 34 (1919), suggesting that the countervailing duty statute was intended to be read broadly. See id.,at 39-42. As petitioner concedes, however, the only question before the Court in that case was whether a direct bounty on exportation of liquor from Great Britain was a “bounty or grant” within the meaning of the statute, see Brief for Petitioner 16-17, and the Court did not address the question of whether nonexcessive remission of an indirect tax fell within the statute.

¹⁶ See Memorandum from the Secretary of the Treasury (1901), reprinted in App. 49-51; T. D. 20407, 2 Synopsis of Decisions 99G, 997-99S (1898); T. D. 22814, 4 Treas. Dec. 184 (1901); Downsv. United States,113 Fed. 144, 145 (CA4 1902).

¹⁷ In rejecting Downs' claim, both the United States Board of General Appraisers and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals identified the “bounty” as residing in the value of the certificates granted upon exportation. See T. D. 22984, 4 Treas. Dec. 405, 410-411, 413 (1901); Downsv. United States, supra,113 Fed., at 145.

¹⁸ The Court also noted that “[i]t is practically admitted in this case that a bounty equal to the value of [the] certificates is paid by the Russian government, and the main argument of the petitioner is addressed to the proposition that this bounty is paid, not upon exportation, but upon production.” 187 U. S., at 512. This latter argument was based on the fact that the 1897 statute covered only bounties on exportation and not those on production. In 1922, Congress amended the statute to cover bounties on production and manufacture as well asexportation. Tariff Act of 1922, supra,n. 8.

^* [Reproduced from the text provided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Acknowledgment of receipt of the notes by the Supreme Court appears at I.L.M. page 945. Having noted that such views as the above should be expressed by filing a printed brief, as amicus curiae, the Solicitor General requests the Department of State to inform foreign governments accordingly in the letter at I.L.M. page 946.]