United States v. United States Shoe Corp., 523 U.S. 360, 11 (1998)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11

370

UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES SHOE CORP.

Opinion of the Court

In sum, if we are "to guard against . . . the imposition of a [tax] under the pretext of fixing a fee," Pace v. Burgess, 92 U. S., at 376, and resist erosion of the Court's decision in IBM, we must hold that the HMT violates the Export Clause as applied to exports. This does not mean that exporters are exempt from any and all user fees designed to defray the cost of harbor development and maintenance. It does mean, however, that such a fee must fairly match the exporters' use of port services and facilities.

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is

Affirmed.

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11

Last modified: October 4, 2007