Moore Busi Ess Forms, Inc

Text (OCR of the scan; may contain errors)

below list prices and that counsel supporting the complaint contend that those documents show, among other things, increasing annual sales, together with disproportionately increased sales by the respondent at prices below its list prices and enhanced ability to compete; and The hearing examiner having stated that such information will be of no assistance in resolving whether competitive injury has or likely may result from any price discriminations proved and having ruled that such documents would not be received unless like sales data for some of the respondent’s competitors are also to be offered; and.

It appearing to the Commission that in situations involving alleged discriminations in price and alleged primary line injury the scope of the seller’s marketing activities and his sales and financial progress or decline necessarily are relevant factors in the over-all competitive situation and are relevant and material to determinations here of past or probable future competitive effects; and The Commission having therefore determined that the rulings excluding the first series of documents, namely, Commission Exhibits for Identification 897 through 408(b), should be reversed as contravening §3.14(b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice which prescribes that relevant, material and reliable evidence shall be received in its adjudicative proceedings; and {t further appearing as to a second series of documents containing statements of the respondent’s earnings for certain years that the hearing examiner deferred final rulings, and the Commission, though regarding its above ruling as also controlling to the admissibility of this series of documents, having determined that this aspect of the appeal should be denied as premature; and The hearing examiner having rejected the third series of documents as too remote for the reason that the industry sales data therein relate primarily to sales of machines or office equipment other than the business forms products relevant here, and there being no showing in the appeal that the hearing examiner’s analysis is erroneous; and Counsel supporting the complaint having further contended that the hearing examiner erroneously ruled that certain exhibits which were received in evidence constituted a complete response to specification 10 of the subpoena duces tecum which issued in this proceeding, but it appearing that the specific rulings cited by counsel do not relate to the question of whether the subpoena has been complied with; and The Commission having further determined that the memoranda filed in support of and in opposition to the appeal suffice for informed decision of the appeal and that the respondent’s request for oral argument should be denied:

It is ordered, That hearing examiner’s rulings excluding Commission Exhibits for Identification 397 through 408(b) be, and they hereby are, reversed.

It is further ordered, That the interlocutory appeal be, and it hereby is, otherwise denied.

CAPITOL RECORDS DISTRIBUTING CORPORATION

Docket 8029. Order and opinion, Mar. 1, 1961