In the 1931 case of General Import & Export Co., Inc. v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning customs duties and import regulations. The plaintiff, General Import & Export Co., had imported goods from Cuba into the U.S., but was charged with higher duty rates than expected due to an executive order issued by President Coolidge in response to a Cuban law that increased export taxes on sugar. The company argued that this action violated their rights under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because they were not given notice or opportunity for hearing before being subjected to these higher rates. The court disagreed with this argument, ruling in favor of the government and upholding the additional charges as constitutional under Article II Section 3 of Constitution which grants power to president "to take Care that Laws be faithfully executed". They stated that it is within presidential authority to adjust tariff rates accordingly when foreign nations alter their own trade policies so as not disadvantage American commerce.

The dissenting opinion in the case of General Import & Export Co., Inc. v. United States argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tariff on imported goods was inconsistent with previous court rulings and unjustly penalized importers. The dissent contended that the Tariff Act of 1922, under which the disputed duties were imposed, did not clearly specify whether it applied to goods already en route at its enactment or only those shipped after its effective date. They believed this ambiguity should have been resolved in favor of importers as per established legal principles favoring leniency in tax laws' interpretation when there is uncertainty about their scope or application. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and prior decisions where similar ambiguities had led to more favorable outcomes for taxpayers.