CA1: “In Commerce” for purposes of the Robinson-Patman Act

Able Sales Company v. Compañía De Azúcar De Puerto Rico, No. 04-1922, this decision was written by two judges.  One recused himself.  I am not sure how this pans out under Nguen v. US, because even though a two-judge panel can transact business, the recused judge participated in oral arguments.

This one presents the issue of the meaning of the jurisdictional "in commerce" requirement of § 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Anti-Discrimination Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13 (in particular “secondary line” violations which are are directed at injuring competition among the discriminating seller's customers).  The court holds that none of the following constitute sugar-related activities “in commerce” for purposes of the Robinson-Patman Anti-Discrimination Act, as they do not cross a state line: 1) importing raw sugar from Florida to Puerto Rico; 2) refining the raw imported sugar in Puerto Rico; and 3) selling the refined sugar to a company that was going to export it from Puerto Rico.