Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-03-26
Not Customs Case.
Dissenting Opinion by Fischer, Gen
eral Appraiser,

can not spell out the rulings of the
United States Supreme Court in the
insular cases the conclusion reached
by the majority of the Board in this
case, and must dissent from their de. |
cIsIOn.
The Collector of the Port of San
Francisco assessed duty on the mer. |
chandlse in question under tne proyi. |
sions of paragraph 122 of the act OF
July "a, 1897, by virtue of section 90 of
the act of April 30. 1900. providing a
government for Hawaii, which reads as
| follows:
"Phat imports from any of the Ha.
waiian Islands, into any State or any
tother Territory of the United States.
OF any dutiable articles not the growth.
production, or manufacture of said
Islands, and imported into them from
any foreign country after July eth.
! 1898, and before this Act takes effect
shall pay the same duties that are i'm
posed on the saem articles when i'm.
ported into the United States from
any foreign country"
Two claims are made:
l. That the Hawaiian Islands arc
part OF the United States and that no
duty can be imposed on the merchan.
use.
z. That the iron in question Is the
product or manufacture of the United
states, and entitled to free entry I'm.
, DER paragraph 4S3 of the act of July
"a. 1897. '
Ihe issue presented here as TO the
. boards Jurisdiction Is extremely i'm.
portant, in that 1t relates not only to
the classification of merchandise
brought into the United States from
such OF our insular possessions as now
are or may hereafter be covered nv
Congressional action. but also to tho
dutiable value of such merchandise.
ana as there Is no statutory provision
providing for an appeal from the &c.
ton OF local appraiser in fixing mar.
ket value, except to the Board of
General Appraisers. II the Board had
no jurisdiction, the importer or the
, government, If dissatisfied with the
value liked by the local appraiser
, might be remediless.
| by the custom administrative act
. OF June 10, 1890, this Board was vest.
ed with Jurisdiction as to all Questions
. relating to rate and amount of duty on
/. imported merchandise, and as to all
) questions relating to the dutiable val.
ne Of imported merchandise. IT,
therefore, the merchandise here in
question was imported, within the
meaning OF the tariff acts, the Board
may proceed to decide the rate of duty
applicable thereto.
The United States Supreme Court
In the insular cases referred to, held
that where the sole question raised in
protest is as to whether or not the
merchandise covered by the protest
was imported, the Board had no jurls
diction. The reason for this Is plain
Tor the Board being limited to cues
tons as to value of and rate and
amount OF duty on imported merchan
disc there is no subject.matter for II
TO pass upon, whether the question
raised be answered in the negative OF
IN the affirmative. In the one case
there Is no imported merchandise as
10 which the Board can act; in the
other case, while there Is imported
merchandise, there is still no question
OF value or rate and amount of duties
involved which the Board is called
upon to decide.
But II second point be raised, In
volving dutiable value or dutlable rate
and amount, assuming the merchan
disc to have been imported, the BoarC
as tribunal clearly has power to eX
anime into the facts for the purpos,
or ascertaining whether or not tn,
merchandise was imported. for on tn,
determination Of that fact depends III
right to examine into and decide tn,
question as to value or as to rate anC
amount II the facts show that tn,
merchandise was not imported, III,
Board must dismiss the protest TO