Opinion of the Court. 337 U.S. As we have noted, Congress has required oral argument expressly in proceedings heard initially before an examiner under § 409 (a). But no such requirement was made by § 312 (b). While that section requires notice and statement of grounds for any proposed order of modification before such order "shall become final," it does not specify that further proceedings shall include the right to oral argument; it requires only that the holder of the outstanding license to be modified "shall have been given reasonable opportunity to show cause why such an order of modification should not issue" before the order becomes final. In view of the contrast between this language and that of 409 (a), it is hardly to be taken that Congress intended the "reasonable opportunity to show cause" always to include opportunity for oral argument. Indeed, in the absence of any such explicit requirement as that of § 409 (a), the terms of § 312 (b) must be read in the light of the Act's general procedural authorization in § 4 (j), which empowers the Commission to "conduct its proceedings in such manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends of justice." In this wording Congress was mindful not only of the ends of justice but also of the proper dispatch of the Commission's business, a matter not unrelated to achieving the ends of justice, and left largely to its judgment the determination of the manner of conducting its business which would most fairly and reasonably accommodate those ends. Moreover it was dealing with substantive interests involving the use, pursuant to federal license, of channels of radio communication "but not the ownership thereof," § 301, as to which moreover the Act expressly provides that "no such license shall be construed to create any right, beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license." Ibid. 265 " Opinion of the Court. In this connection it cannot be recalled too often that "public convenience, interest, or necessity' was the touchstone for the exercise of the Commission's authority" in matters relating to construction permits and licensing, and that this criterion "serves as a supple instrument for the exercise of discretion by the expert body which Congress has charged to carry out its legislative policy." Federal Communications Commission v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U. S. 134, 137-138. "Necessarily, therefore, the subordinate questions of procedure in ascertaining the public interest, when the Commission's licensing authority is invoked-the scope of the inquiry, whether applications should be heard contemporaneously or successively, whether parties should be allowed to intervene in one another's proceedings, and similar questions—were explicitly and by implication left to the Commission's own devising, so long, of course, as it observes the basic requirements designed for the protection of private as well as public interest." Id. at 138. We need not go again over the ground which was covered by this decision and others. Suffice it to say that the Commission has not seen fit to provide for oral argument in all such cases as this arising under § 312 (b); nor is there any basis in the section or the Act for believing that Congress intended to require it to do so. "Reasonable opportunity to show cause," as used in § 312 (b), comprehends, in the light of § 4 (j) and this Court's prior decisions, that the Commission shall have broad discretion in determining whether and when oral argument shall be required or permitted, as it does with respect to other procedural matters." 17 That is true even though § 4 (j) also provides that "Any party may appear before the Commission and be heard in person or by attorney." That provision does not nullify the Commission's discretion as to the manner in which the "reasonable opportunity to Opinion of the Court. 337 U.S. Respondent does not contend that it was denied any opportunity to present for the Commission's consideration any matter of fact or law in connection with its application or that the Commission has not given all matters submitted by it due and full consideration. We cannot say, in view of the statute and of the subject matter involved, that the Commission abused its discretion in hearing respondent's application on the written submission.18 Accordingly we think it was error for the court to decline to decide the merits of the question whether respondent's application stated a legally sufficient case of (indirect) modification of its license within the terms of § 312 (b) as well as to decide, without determining that question, that respondent was entitled to be made a party to and participate as such in the Coastal Plains proceeding. As we have said, in the situation here presented, the two forms of statement pose the same question in substance, together with the further question, under the KOA decision, whether respondent has standing to appeal as a party aggrieved. The statutory sequence identifies (1) a legally sufficient claim of modification with (2) right to standing as a party and (3) right to appeal. show cause" afforded by § 312 (b) shall be given. It only assures the right to participate "in person or by attorney" in the manner reasonably found by the Commission to be appropriate. 18 Federal Rule 78, the terms of which were noted by the dissent in the Court of Appeals, 174 F. 2d 226, 247, provides in part, as to United States District Courts: "To expedite its business, the court may make provision by rule or order for the submission and determination of motions without oral hearing upon brief written statements of reasons in support and opposition." Fed. Rules Civ. Proc., Rule 78. Similar notice may be taken of Rule 7 (2) of this Court which, governing not only motion practice in appellate cases but motions for leave to initiate original proceedings, provides in part: "Oral argument will not be heard on any motion unless the court specially assigns it therefor . . . ." 265 Opinion of the Court. This threefold issue presents a question of law respondent is entitled to have determined. The dissenting judges in the Court of Appeals considered the question insubstantial, because they thought, contrary to respondent's position, that the Commission's Standards of Good Engineering Practice applied as a limitation upon respondent's license and therefore excluded it from protection against interference such as respondent alleged, i. e., side the contours prescribed by the Standards. out That question, being one of law, might now be decided here. But since the statute, if it affords respondent a right of appeal, provides that it shall be to the Court of Appeals, and since that court has not decided the basic issue on the merits, we think the cause should be remanded to the Court of Appeals for decision of that question, uncomplicated by questions of constitutionality relating to the Commission's procedure. Accordingly the court's decision is reversed and the cause is remanded to it for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. MR. JUSTICE MURPHY took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. 337 U.S. Opinion of the Court. JOY OIL CO., LTD. v. STATE TAX COMMISSION. CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MICHIGAN. No. 223. Argued January 6-7, 1949.-Decided June 13, 1949. Petitioner, a Canadian corporation, purchased in Michigan 1,500,000 gallons of gasoline, certified that it was purchased for export, shipped it by rail to Detroit under bills of lading marked "For Export to Canada," and placed it in storage tanks in Dearborn, Michigan. Fifteen months later, when only 50,000 gallons had been exported to Canada, Dearborn assessed an ad valorem property tax on the remaining gasoline. Because of a shortage of shipping space, it was more than eighteen months after storage before all of the gasoline had been exported to Canada. Held: The tax was not in violation of the Export-Import Clause, Art. I, § 10, cl. 2, of the Federal Constitution. Pp. 286-289. 321 Mich. 335, 32 N. W. 2d 472, affirmed. An ad valorem tax assessed by a Michigan municipality upon a Canadian corporation's stores of gasoline was sustained by the State Supreme Court against a claim of invalidity under the Export-Import Clause of the Federal Constitution. 321 Mich. 335, 32 N. W. 2d 472. This Court granted certiorari. 335 U. S. 812. Affirmed, p. 289. Clayton F. Jennings argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner. Edmund E. Shepherd, Solicitor General of Michigan, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Eugene F. Black, Attorney General, Daniel J. O'Hara, Assistant Attorney General, Dale H. Fillmore and Joel K. Underwood. MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court. On December 29, 1945, petitioner Joy Oil Company, Ltd., a Canadian corporation, purchased 1,500,000 gal |