U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., upheld constitutionality of federal Har...

which in this case were TV sets. HMT was enacted as part of Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and was intended to help fund maintenance and improvement at U.S. ports. HMT imposes charge of 0.125% of value of commercial cargo that’s unloaded in port. In its appeal, Thomson, which pays more than $1 million in HMTs annually, argued among other things that law violated Uniformity Clause of Constitution because it exempted Alaska and Hawaii, 47.5-mile stretch of Columbia River and inland waterways. Thomson contended that HMT as it applied to imports and domestic unloadings didn’t “correlate reliably with the federal harbor services used or usable.” But court said HMT, as it applied to imports and domestic unloadings, wasn’t tax, but rather was user fee that couldn’t be applied under Uniformity Clause. Appeals court, while saying HMT was “imperfect in application,” held that charges were based on “fair approximation of the cost of the benefits provided for port users.” It also said HMT wasn’t excessive in relation to costs incurred by federal govt. While Thomson also said HMT violated Port Preference Clause of Constitution by favoring one port over another, appeals court said company’s “logic is flawed.” It said that “exemptions at issue here are not the sort of preference prohibited” by Port Preference Clause. Thomson spokesman declined comment on decision, but noted that company had disputed fees paid in “certain” U.S. ports for several years. Thomson was subject of U.S. Customs probe that included search of Tube Div.’s Scranton, Pa., hq in Jan. 1998. Investigation was believed to have focused on 31-32” tubes imported from Italy and loss of customs revenue due to transfer pricing. Case was later settled.