made to the United States. This item is one that it is very difficult to construe. As we have seen heretofore, the appraised value is not an item of the dutiable value, the appraisal being only to ascertain whether there was fraud in the invoice. But in 1823, when the appraisement became a permanent feature in the customs laws, the appraised value seems to have been made the basis on which duties were imposed. For instance, the acts of 1842 and 1846 required "all costs and charges except insurance, including in every case a charge for commissions," to be added to the appraised value, which value when the goods were from the country of their origin, was that of the country of export, and when from a country not that of their origin, it was the value of the goods in the country of their origin. When goods were shipped from Canton to London, and reshipped to New York, the freight from Canton to London was not allowed to be added. The costs and charges contemplated were those incurred at the place of shipment to the United States, not those charges incurred prior to the shipment. The charges incurred prior to that time were included in the market value. The fact that the market value is that of the place of shipment in one case and the country of production in another, does not alter the rule. To add the charges prior to shipment would be to include these charges twice. The implication is strong in this case that freight from London to the United States might be added, but subsequent cases show that such was not the meaning of the court. When goods were bought in Buenos Ayres, transported to Montevideo, and thence shipped to the United States, the freight from Buenos Ayres to Montevideo was not allowed to be added, and costs were limited to costs at Montevideo; and where silks were shipped from Canton to London, and thence were shipped to New York, the courts say that neither the freight from Canton to London or from London to New York is to be added." And under the act of 1851, which so far as this matter is concerned, is the same, when goods were shipped from Smyrna to Liverpool, to be reshipped to the United States, freight from Smyrna to Liverpool was not allowed to be added. Curtis, J.: "The direction to add charges to the cost of the goods was in the act of 1795, then in the act of 1799, and in many acts since. The practice of the treasury department has been not to include freight as a dutiable charge, as 1 Grinnell v. Lawrence, 1 Blatch. C. C. 346. 2 Wilbur v. Lawrence, 2 Blatch. C. C. 314. Griswold v. Maxwell, 3 Blatch. C. C. 145. + Grant v. Peaselee, 2 Curt. C. C. 250; s. P. Hofmin ". Williams. Taney's Decisions, 69; Hutton v. Schell, 6 Blatch. C. C. 48; Barnard ». Morton, 1 Sprague, 186. stated in the circular of March 27, 1851. This practical construction must be considered as known by Congress when they used the phraseology in the act." But this court held that the act made a difference between transportation by sea and transportation by land, and thought that the cost of transportation from the place in which goods were purchased in the country of their origin to the seacoast might be added, and transportation from Paris to Havre was allowed to be added.1 In 1865, all laws requiring duties to be assessed on missions, brokerage, costs of transportation, shipment and transhipment, and other like costs and charges incurred in placing any goods, wares or merchandise on shipboard" were repealed.2 com The provision in the Revised Statutes evidently makes a change as to the second item. Transportation is an item now of dutiable value, and all kinds of expense attendant, whether original shipment. or transhipment, whether by land or water, between certain points, from the place of growth or manufacture to the vessel in which shipment is made to the United States, are included. The place of growth or manufacture refers to the particular town or hamlet. It is used in its geographical sense, as contradistinguished from the word country. The cost is reckoned from that point to the vessel which brings the merchandise direct to the United States. This encourages direct importation from the country of origin. If the importer purchases in a country not that of the origin, he will have to pay for the transportation to that point in his purchase; and in paying duties, that item will be included a second time, as a part of the cost of transporting the goods to the vessel which brings them to the United States, which is to be added to the cost of the goods. c. The next item is the value of "the sack, box, or covering of any kind, in which the merchandise is contained." Under former acts, when wool was imported in hides, the value of the hides was included as one of the charges of getting goods aboard the ship, being considered a part of the cost of packing. The value of sacks used in importing salt was considered a proper item in ascertaining market value, while the cost of boxes used for preservation and convenience 1 Warren v. Peaselee, 2 Curt. C. C. 231; affi'd 2 Curt. C. C. 250; 1 Mayo's Treasury Circulars, p. 45. 22 Bright. Dig. Laws, p. 259, § 116; 13 Stat. U. S. p. 493, § 1. See 21 Int. Rev. Rec. p. 52, and Circular, 2012, for the construction of this item by the Secretary of the Treasury. 3 Saxonville Mills v. Russell, 1 Low. Decisions, 450. 4 Barnard v. Morton, 1 Curt. C. C. 404. in shipping lemons and oranges was not so considered.1 The rule is now fixed as to the dutiable value; all materials in which the goods are shipped are included. d. The fourth item is commission at the usual rates, but not less than 2 per cent. It was claimed under a former act that the commission was only to be added when it was actually paid. The case was one of an importer of crockery, where, when the dealer employs the agent of the manufacturer, or sends directly to the manufacturer, he pays no commission, and it is only when he has to employ an agent that the commission is actually paid. The court held that the act applied to every case. It is the commission actually paid that is to be added, and the Secretary of the Treasury cannot fix the rate. The statute now fixes the minimum. e. The fifth item is brokerage, export duty, and all actual or usual charges for putting up, preparing, and packing for transportation or shipment. This seems to be an entirely new item not found in acts previous to 1866. f. The last item is that charges of a general nature incurred in the purchase of a general invoice are proportioned pro rata among all parts of the invoice. The aggregate of these items constitutes the value on which duties are assessed according to the rate fixed by Congress for the particular article. The details of this section were enacted for the first time in 1866.4 If, in the same invoice, there is merchandise of the same material or description, but of different values, the duty is to be assessed on the whole invoice at the rate to which the highest valued goods are subject 5 So, if articles composed wholly or in part of wool or cotton of similar kind, but different quality, are found in the same package, it is the duty of the appraisers to take the value of the best article in the package as the average value of the whole package." Penalties.-There are penalties imposed under certain circumstances which are added to the duties to be paid. One of these penalties is where the appraised value exceeds the invoice value by ten per cent. If the importer has purchased his goods below the market value as much as ten per cent., although his invoice states the cost truly, he will be subject to a penalty. To relieve him from this hard 1 Cobb v. Hamlin, 8 Int. Rev. Rec. 121; Harding v. Whitney, 11 Int. Rev. Rec. 103. 2 Norcross v. Greeley, 1 Curt. C. C. 114. 3 Munsell v. Maxwell, 3 Blatch. C. C. 364. In Warren v. Peaselee, 2 Curt. C. C. 231, it is said that the sum on which commissions is fixed by usage may be the footing of the invoice. 414 Stat. U. S. p. 330, § 9. 6 R. S. U. S. § 2911. 5 R. S. U. S. § 2910. ship the eighth section of the act of 1846 provided that the importer may, on the entry of the goods, make such additions to the invoice value as in his opinion will raise the same to the true market value of such goods in the market of exportation. This provision only extended to the case of purchasers, and did not include manufacturers or producers. Where the consignee made an entry, presenting an invoice sent to him by the owner, and made oath as to its correctness, and after the collector had directed the appraisement, but before it was completed, applied to amend the entry by adding to the price set down in it an amount sufficient to raise the goods to their fair market value abroad, in order to avoid the penalty, the privilege was refused.3 By the express words of the statute now the privilege is confined to the period of entry. It is to be at the time when "he shall produce his original invoice to the collector, and make and verify his written entry of his merchandise, and not afterward." But it has been extended as to persons, and now includes not only the purchaser, but those who procure the goods in any other mode." Penalty under 2900.-This section allows the additions to the value in the invoice to be made at the time of entry, but it declares that a penalty of twenty per cent. on the appraised value shall be collected, if the appraised value exceeds by ten per cent. the value as declared in the entry. This penalty was imposed for the same reason prior to 1846; and when that act was passed it was claimed that this penalty was then only to be imposed in case the additions were made, but the courts held that it applied whether the additions were made or not, the offense aimed at was an undervaluation, and the only difference now and before the act was that the purchaser might avoid the penalty by his additions made at the time of entry.5 Originally it only applied to purchasers; but after 1857 it was extended to manufacturers as well as purchasers, and now it applies to all importers. If there is a difference between the value declared on entry and the appraised value of ten per cent., whether that value has been increased by the addition which the importer is privileged to make or 1 Stairs v. Peaselee, 18 How. 527, 528. 2 Belcher v. Lawrason, 21 How. 251; Thomson v. Maxwell, 2 Blatch. C. C. 385; Christ v. Maxwell, 3 Blatch. C. C. 129. 3 Harriman v. Maxwell, 3 Blatch. C. C. 421. 4R S. U. S. § 2900. By a recent act the failure to add the additional dutiable charge mentioned in § 2907, if without intent to defraud, does not forfeit the goods, but the collector is to add double the am unt omitted. 18 Stat. U. S. p. 189, § 14. 5 Stairs. Peaselee, 18 How. 527, 528. 6 Belcher v. Lawrason, 21 How. 251; Kimball v. Collector, 10 Wall. 436; 2 Blatch. C. C. 385; 3 Blatch. C. C. 129. not, the penalty is to be collected. The penalty is twenty per cent. on the value ascertained by the appraisers. The value which the appraisers ascertain is not the gross value of the articles in the invoice or entry, but the value by the weight, gauge, yard or measure. If the difference between the weight or measure named in the invoice is so great as to make the aggregate value greater by ten per cent. than the aggregate in the invoice, the penalty is not incurred. The penalty is for undervaluation, and if the value per yard is correct, it is not incurred.' The duty is imposed on the goods actually imported, and if the quantity is really less than that stated in the invoice, he pays not for the amount in the invoice, but the amount landed. So, if a greater amount is landed than is in the invoice, duty is paid on that amount, but the penalty of undervaluation is not incurred. This privilege of making additions was designed alone to relieve the importer from the penalty of undervaluation, by allowing him to raise the value. It was not intended to allow him to escape duty by reducing the value in the invoice by amendments at the time of entry. The original act and all subsequent acts contain a proviso that the duty shall not be assessed upon less than the invoice or entered value. By the act of 1857, wool of the value of twenty cents or less, at the place of exportation, was exempt; if over that value, it was subject to a duty of twenty-four per cent. An importer bought wool at Capetown at ten pence, which was over twenty cents federal money, but he did not ship it until wool had fallen to eight and a half pence, which was less than twenty cents federal money. The wool was invoiced at the actual cost and entered according to the invoice value. The appraisers reported the value correct. A re-appraisement was asked after the duties were assessed, but before they were paid, to determine the actual value of the wool, which was refused. The court held that the proviso not only applied to goods subject to duty, but to those which would otherwise be exempt.3 Penalty under § 2908.-This penalty is only imposed when the additions are made to the entry in pursuance of § 2900. When those additions exceed the value declared in the entry by ten per cent., then a penalty of twenty per cent. on the value as entered, is imposed. This penalty is entirely different from that of § 2900. The latter is for an undervaluation, the test of which is a difference of ten per cent. between the appraised value and the entered value, which may 'Manhattan Gas Light Co. v. Maxwell, 2 Blatch. C. C. 405. Marriott v. Brune, 9 How. 619. 3 Kimball v. Collector, 10 Wall. 436. |