Court Opinion

ID: 8855232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 17:27:46.120009+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:38.133375
License: Public Domain

LACOMBE, Circuit
Judge (orally charging jury, after stating the ease as above). I have examined this matter with great care since Friday, in the hopes that, in some way or other, I could find some means for relieving the defendant, in whole or in part, from this claim; but, gentlemen of the jury, it,is impossible to do so. The laws of'the United Btates in regard to the liquidation and collection of duties upon imports are evidently constructed upon the *680theory that the citizen who imports goods has no rights at all, or, at least, that the federal government need not be under the slightest concern about them. Under the statutes and the authorities, it is clear that there was no liquidation until the collector himself acted. The mere act of the appraiser in raising the value was a step towards liquidation, but liquidation was not complete until the collector had performed his act. Under the statute, moreover, the collector may “liquidate” whenever he pleases. It may be a week after the goods arrive, or it may be eight years, as it was in this case; and, under the law, he is under no obligation to notify the merchant of his liquidation. The merchant, apparently, has got to keep watch from the time he gets the goods until the collector acts and liquidates, and he takes the risk of not being advised of that action when it occurs. Under the laws as they stand, there is absolutely nothing to do in this case but to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, with an exception to the defendant. '
The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiffs, in accordance with the direction of the court, for $904.80, with interest from March 14, 1890.