The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-08-11
.

s0lIl we're repealed ana new reguIa-
lions established. by which an appeal
was given from the decision OF the
collector as 20 the rate and amount
Ct the duties chargeabie upon imported
merchandise II such duties we're
paid under protest. to Board Of Gen
eral Appraisers. whose decision
should be final and conclusive lsec-
I4) as to the construction Of the Law
and the facts respecting the elassia-
cation Of such merchandise and the
rate Of duties imposed thereon IN
der such classification, unless with
in thirty days one OF the parties ap-
piled TO the Circuit Court Of the Unit
Cd States for q review OF the ques-
tions Of Law and fact involved in
such decision. fSec. Isl II was fur
Their provided that the decision OF
such court should be final. unless the
court were OF opinion that the ques-
ton involved was of such importance
as to require a review by this court.
which was given power TO affirm,
modify or reverse the decision Of the
Circuit Court
The effect Of the Customs Admin
istrative Act was considered By this
court in In re Fassett, Petitioner.
tl42 Q. s. 49, in which we held
that the decision Of the collector that
a yacht was an imported article might
be reviewed upon libel for posses
sion filed by the owner, notwithstand-
ing the Customs Administrative Act.
Il was held that the review OF the
decision OF the Board Of General APP
praisers. provided for by section If
teen OF that act, was limited to de-
cisions OF the board "as to the con-
struction OF the law and the facts
respecting the classification OF i'm
ported merchandise "and the rate OF
duties imposed thereon under such
classification. and that 1t did not
bring up for review the question
whether an article be imported mer-
chandise or not. nor. under section
fifteen. is the ascertainment of that
fact aneh decision as Is provided
for. Said Mr. Justice Blatchford:
Nor can the court Of review pass up
on any question which the collector
had not original authority to deter
mine The collector has no authority
to make any determination regarding
any article which is not imported
merchandise: and If the vessel in
question here is not imported mer-
chRndise. the court OF review would
have no jurisdiction to determine
any matter regarding that question.
and could not determine the very fact
which Is in issue under the libel in
the District Court. on which the
rights of the lbellant depend"
Under the Customs Administrative
Act, the libellant, in order to have the
benefit of the proceedings Hereunder
must concede that the vessel is i'm
ported merchandise. which is the very
question put in contention under the
libel. and must make entry of her as
imported merchandise. with an in
voice and consular certificate to that
effect" II was held that the libel
was properly fled
The question involved in this case
Is not whether the sugars were i'm
portable articles under the tariff laws.
but whether. coming as they did from
a port alleged to be domestic. they
were imported from a foreign coun-
0L&CA A0iQcs HHSAACI they
were imported at all as that word is
defined in Woodruff v Parham. Is |
Wall. 122. 1927 We think the deci- |
sion nthe Fassett case is conclusive |
10 the effect that. II the question be |
the sugars were imported or /
not. such question could not be raised /
before the Board of General Apprais- |
ers: and that whether they were inn |
ported merchandise for the reasons
given in the Fassett case that a yes
sci is not an importahle article. or 1
because the merchandise was not |
brought from foreign country, is |
immaterial In either case the arti- |
Gle is not imported
Conceding then that section soil |
has been repealed. and that no rene
ay exists under the Customs Admin L
istrative Act. does i follow that no
action whatever win LEE n there be
al admitted wrong. the courts VIII /
look far TO supply an adequate rene
~. II an action lay AZ common Law
The repeal Of sections 1881 and 30l1, 1
regulating proceedings in customs
,ases, that Is. turning upon the class
deation Of merchandise TO make
way for another proceeding before
he Board Of General Appraisers in
he same class Of cases, did not de-
'troy sny right OF action that might !,
rare existed as to other than Gus
oms cases and the fact that by sec
ion p no collector shall be liable
for OF on account OF any rulings or
decisions as to the classification OF
'eeh merchandise or the duties eharE-
q thereon. or the collection Of any
Tues charges or duties on or on ac-
cunt Of any such merchandise. or
ny other matter which the importer
siSef have brought before the Board
= General Appraisers. does not res
rief the right which the owner Of fAe
merchandise might have against tie
'olsester n eases rot falling withfn
De Customs Administrative Act TfIs
ne position q the Government b
eyrest. the plaintiff would Sc rene
iless and L collseeor should seirs !