New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1906-05-22
IMPORTERS MUST PAY
In portaut Decision Handed Dozen
bu Un:ted States Supreme Court.

one Of the most important decisions affecting I'M
portcls IL this city which has been rendered IN
/ wears mas been handed down by the United States
Supreme Court in the case OF the United States
Az. DeckerhofT. Rafleer & Co. By the decision
importers il is said may have to pay added duty
on some classes Of goods but it IS hoped that the
decision will lead to some attempt to onviate the
DELAYS in examination of merchandise. possibly by
q Treasury regulation. The case has been argued
in various courts since January, 1897 Justice Day
wrote the decision Of the court. having reached
the United States Supreme Court from the Circuit
Court of Appeals on a writ of certioraT
Diecxerhoff. Rafleer & Go. imported the steam
slip Bovic January 49, 1897, seven packages of
nercha ndiss. which were entered in the New York
Custom House At estimated value of 1882 The
customs officials retained one package for examina-
ton. The custom had been for years, in cases of
several packages OF goods being imported. for one
package to be retained for examination and the
rest to go TO the importer. The remainder went
into consumption. and, in many cases, besides that
in this particular case, when the appraisers de-
sired a second package to examine they found
that the package had gone into consumption and
could not be obtained. After examination another
package was called for It was not sent, and suit
was brought on the bond The statute authorizes
a bond double the value of the merchandise con-
ditoned that shall be delivered to the order of
the Collector any time within days after
the package has been sent to the Public Stores and
appraised and reported to the Collector. The
statute also provides that if, in the time any
the Collector in the manner provided, or If the
package is not delivered TO the order Of the Col
Iector according to the condition of the bond. it
shall in either case be forfeited.
Justice Day, in his decision. decides against the
importing firm and orders that the firm must pay
the Judgment for double the value of the unre-
turned package. thereby sustaining the opinion OF
the Circuit Court. In his opinion Justice Day
writes:
It is the right of the government to examine
ascertain its value for the purpose of fixing the
amount of duties collectible thereon II has the
right to hold this merchandise until the purpose
can be effected Obviously it would be imprac-
ticable to all goods and hold them until ex-
animation. The law has. therefore, provided for
the detention usually of one package in ten OF an
Importation and given the privilege to the i'm
porter of removing the rest Of the goods, but to
be held intact subject to the right of the govern
for inspection shall suggest such course to require
that other packages be returned intact for eX-
animation and if this statutory duty is not per-
formed we think II the intention of the law TO
provide specific damages to be recovered upon the
of the duty imposed, and to Sc
cure prompt and faithful discharge Of which
the statute provides for the giving of a bond.
It is strongly urged that this in many cases may
work serious hardship. and that in all the years
in which this statute its equivalent has been
in force action is shown to have been brought
upon this theory. But the contract is definite in
its terms, and il the privilege OF the i'm
porter to leave the goods in the custody OF the
obligation which is the subject matter of this suit
The purpose of the statute was to enforce the
collection of the revenues and 70 require that
goods shall be represented, and If removed from
governmental control before the facts about them
are ascertained except provided by statute
a specific penalty be paid for failure TO do so; We
judgment for double the value of the unreturned
package.