The B. F. Goodrich Co.

Text (OCR of the scan at left; may contain errors)

IN THE MATTER THE B. F. GOODRICH CO.

Docket 5U77. Oomplaint, July 191,9-Deci8iun, Jan. 24, 1954 Charge: Discriminating in price by sellng rubber and canvas footwear to some customers at higher prices than to others competitively eng-aged with the forme!' in the resale of said products, in violation of subsection 2 (a) of the Clayton Act, as amended.

Before Mr. Webster Ballinger hearing examiner. Mr. James 1. Rooney and Mr. James S. Kelaher for the Commission. Mr. G. T. Kilmon and Mr. R. G. Jeter of Akron, Ohio, and Kirkland, Fleming, Green, Martin Ellis of Washington, D. for respondent.

DECISION OF THE CO:'fMISSION Pursuant to Rule XXII of the Commission s Rules of Pradice, the attached decision of the hearing examiner shall, on January 24, 1954 become the decision of the Commission.

Commissioner IIoWREY not participating.

INITIAL DECISION BY WEBSTER BALLINGEH, HEARING EXAMINER Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Ad the Federal Trade Commission on .July 8 , 1949, issued and subsequently served its complaint in this proceeding upon the respondent The B. F. Goodrich Company charging it with having since June 19 1936, violated and now violating the provisions of subsection (a) of Section 2 of the Clayton Act as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act approved June 19, 1936. After the filing and service of said complaint respondent answered. Issues joined hearings were thereafter held at which testimony and other evidence in support of the allegations of the complaint and in opposition thereto were introduced before the above-named Hearing Examiner theretofore duly designated by the Commission. The testimony and other evidence offered and admitted were duly filed and recorded in the office of the Commission. Thereafter, the proceeding regularly came on for final hearing upon a motion by counsel for respondent, uncontested by counsel for the complaint, to dismiss the complaint, and the Examiner after a careful reviewal' the entire record finds that this proceeding is not in the interest of the public.

The complaint charges respondent with having since June 19, 1936 violated and "now " violating the provisions of subsection (a) of 622 Decision Section 2 of the Clayton Act as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act by "discriminating in price between purchasers of its rubber and canvas footwear of like grade and quality in so selling said products to some of its customers at higher prices than it sells such products of like grade and quality to other of its customers who are competitively engaged one with the other in the resale of said products within the United States." It is further charged that the effect of the discriminations in price "has been or may be substantially to lessen injure, destroy or prevent competition in the sale and distribution of rubber and canvas footwear between those of respondent's purchasers who receive the benefits of such discriminations and competing purchasers who do not receive the same benefits." The discrimination in price, it is charged, is effectuated through quantity discounts depicted in 10 quantity discount brackets set forth in the complaint. Respondent denied that it had or was violating the provisions of the statute referred to and pleaded " cost justification" for the quantity discounts set forth in the ten brackets it allowed purchasers. After the taking of approximately 650 pages of testimony and the introduction of a number of exhibits, the hearings were arrested to afford Commission accountants an opportunity to make a more thorough examination of the books and records of the respondent than was made prior to the issuance of the complaint, which resulted in a stipulation wherein it is stated:

"* * * that all price differences are * * * cost justified, excepting therefrom the 13% discount from list price bracket in relation to other higher discounts applicable to waterproof 1'ootwea1' "* .. * that the total sales made by respondent pursuant to its price policy in the said 13% discount from list price bracket amounted to substantially less than 11 of 1% of the total sales of waterproof footwear made by respondent for the year 1949. (The last full year referred to in the complaint.

There can be no public interest, and the Commission would not be warranted, in pursuing an inquiry relating to a discount bracket affecting such an insignificant proportion of respondent' s business from which no possible substantial injury to competitors could result. The motion to dismiss recites the above facts and counsel for the complaint make no objection to the granting of the motion. It is therefore ordered That the complaint be and it is hereby dismissed.

624 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION DECISIOKS Order 50 l!'