Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/85560/united-states-vs-auffmordt
Timestamp: 2018-05-20 17:12:49
Document Index: 20213695

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2864', '§ 2864', '§ 2864', '§ 1', '§ 2841', '§ 4', '§ 12', '§ 2864', '§ 12', '§ 2864', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 2864', '§ 2864']

United States Vs Auffmordt - Citation 85560 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
United States Vs. Auffmordt - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/85560
Case Number 122 U.S. 197
Respondent Auffmordt
.....to § 2864 by the act of february 18, 1875, c. 80, 18 stat. 319, by inserting the words "or the value thereof" did not have the effect of enacting that the value of merchandise is to be forfeited under § 2864 notwithstanding the act of june 22, 1874, c. 391. the object and effect of the amendment were only to correct an error in the text of § 2864 and to make it read as it read when in force on the 1st of december, 1873, as part of § 1 of the act of march 3, 1863, c. 76, 12 stat. 738. this is an action brought by the united states in the district court of the united states for the southern district of new york against clement a. auffmordt, john f. degener, william degener, and adolph william von kessler, composing the firm of c. a. auffmordt & co., to recover the sum of.....
United States v. Auffmordt - 122 U.S. 197 (1887)
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Auffmordt, 122 U.S. 197 (1887)
Section 2839 applies only to purchased goods.
After the case was opened to the jury on the part of the United States and before any testimony was offered, the defendants moved upon such opening that the court direct a verdict for the defendants on the ground that there was no statute of the United States whereby the value of the merchandise could be recovered by reason of the acts alleged to have been committed by the defendants as consignees of the goods, which was the capacity in which they received and entered the goods, the goods being the property of the manufacturers of them in Switzerland, and being consigned to the defendants for sale on commission. The facts sought to be proved against the defendants were that they, knowingly and with intent to defraud the revenue, entered the goods at invoice
prices lower than their actual market value at the time and place of exportation. The court ruled that there was no existing statute of the United States under which the plaintiff could recover upon any possible proof, and that a verdict must be directed for the defendants. 19 F. 893. The plaintiffs excepted to this ruling.
that the defendants, being consignees of the merchandise mentioned in the complaint, knowingly made entries thereof by means of false invoices; that the defendants, being agents of the merchandise mentioned in the complaint, knowingly made entry thereof by means of false invoices; that the defendants, being consignees of the merchandise mentioned in the complaint, knowingly made entry thereof by means of invoices which did not contain a true statement of the particulars required in that part of the Act of March 3, 1863, preceding the
Section 2839 provides for the forfeiture of merchandise, or the value thereof, "to be recovered of the person making entry," where the merchandise is "not invoiced according to the actual cost thereof at the place of exportation, with design to evade payment of duty." This section, originally enacted in 1799, is applicable only to goods which are required to be invoiced according to their actual cost at the place of exportation. Alfonso v. United States, 2 Story 421, 429, 432. By § 2841 of the Revised Statutes, originally § 4 of the Act of March 1, 1823, c. 21, 3 Stat. 730, 732, forms of oaths on the entry of goods are prescribed, one for the "consignee, importer, or agent," one for the "owner in cases where merchandise has been actually purchased," and a third for the "manufacturer or owner in cases where merchandise has not been actually purchased." In the first form of oath, the oath is that the invoice "exhibits the actual cost (if purchased) or fair market value (if otherwise obtained)" at the time and place of procurement. In the second form of oath, the oath is that the oath contains "a just and faithful account of the actual cost."
" Section 2864, Revised Statutes, 2d ed. "
" Section 12 of the Act. of June 22, 1874. "
Section 13 of the Act of June 22, 1874, provides that any merchandise entered by any person violating § 12, but not
On a full review of the above-recited provisions of the Act of June 22, 1874, and of its other provisions, it is apparent that so far at least as the act subject to the penalties denounced in § 2864 are concerned, they are entirely covered by the provisions of § 12 of the Act of June 22, 1874. There is no act denounced by § 2864 that is not embraced, both as to person and character of act, by the provisions of § 12. The latter section adds, as a punishment for the offense, fine or
imprisonment, or both, and a forfeiture of the merchandise in addition to the fine. It leaves out a forfeiture of the value of the merchandise, and forfeiture of such value is inconsistent with the terms of § 12, and is therefore repealed by it. The absolute forfeiture of the merchandise provided for by § 12 is inconsistent also with the alternative forfeiture of the merchandise or its value provided for by § 2864. The provisions of the two statutes cannot stand together. Norris v. Crocker, 13 How. 429, 54 U. S. 438 ; United States v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88, 78 U. S. 92 ; Murdock v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 87 U. S. 617 ; United States v. Claflin, 97 U. S. 546 , 97 U. S. 552 -553; King v. Cornell, 106 U. S. 395 , 106 U. S. 396 ; Pana v. Bowler, 107 U. S. 529 , 107 U. S. 538 .
It is contended for the United States that this amendment to § 2864, made by the Act of February 18, 1875, can be reasonably accounted for only upon the theory that at the date it was made, which was after the passage of the Act of June