In Star-Kist Foods,Inc

In Star-Kist Foods,Inc.v.United States,Star-Kist complained that the president's authority under the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 was unconstitutional.Star-Kist sought to challenge a presidentially lowered tariff on canned tuna imported from Iceland.Which of the following statements are true?

A) Star-Kist won because the congressional delegation of authority was vague and indefinite as to the policies or objectives sought.
B) Star-Kist won because of the lack of a standard or "intelligible principle" upon which presidential action could be judged.
C) Star-Kist lost because they lacked "standing" to protest the president's action; only Congress could object by means of a concurrent resolution.
D) Star-Kist lost because the court determined that the 1934 statute had provided a sufficiently discernible standard to guide presidential action.