Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. v. United States

After full consideration of the arguments advanced upon the rehearing of this case I find myself constrained to dissent from the judgment of the court. In my view the construction placed by the majority of the court upon Section 602% of the Revenue Act of 1934 cannot be supported either by its language or by the intent of its framers as shown by its legislative history. I shall briefly set forth the reasons for my view.

In the first place the phrase “first domestic processing” seems to me to be wholly free from ambiguity. “First”, when used as here in respect of time, means earliest in point…