Court Opinion

ID: 8629700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:35:44.274704+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:43.637401
License: Public Domain

CLIFFORD, Circuit Justice.
Collectors of the customs within whose districts merchandise subject to an ad valorem rate of duty was imported or entered, were required by the act of the 3d of March, 1865, to cause the actual market value or wholesale price thereof, at the period of the exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from which the same was imported into the United States, to be appraised, and the act provided that such appraised value should be considered the value upon which the duty should be assessed. . 13 Stat. 493.
Throughout the period of these importations the act of the 3d of March, 1865, was in full force and operation. Reference to the ninth section of the act will show that it went into operation on the 1st of April after it was passed, and it continued in force until the 10th of August of the following year. 14 Stat. 32S. Actual market value of imported merchandise subject to any ad valorem rate of duty was required by the sixteenth section of the act of the 30th of August, 1S42. to be estimated, ascertained, and appraised as it was in the principal markets of the country from which the same was imported, and at the time when the merchandise was purchased, and the provision was, that to such value or price should be added, as the true value upon which the duties should be assessed, all the costs and charges, except insurance, and including in every ease a charge for commissions at the usual rates. 5 Stat. 563.
The same provision was incorporated into the appraisement act of the 3d of March, 1851, except that the requirement in that act is, that the actual market value or wholesale price of the merchandise shall be appraised, estimated, and ascertained at the period and place of exportation. 9 Stat. 629. Costs and charges, as distinguished from the actual market value of the merchandise, were under those acts properly added to such market value, as the means of ascertaining the dutiable value of the importation at the port where the merchandise was entered. Knight v. Schell, 24 How. [65 U. S.] 531. Whenever a properly certified bill of lading is presented, showing the day of actual shipment, the twenty-eighth section of the act of the 2d of March, 1861, provides that the duty shall be estimated and collected on the day of actual shipment. 12 Stat. 197.
In determining the valuation of goods imported from foreign countries, the twenty-fourth section of the act of the 30th of June, 1864, provides that the actual value of such goods on shipboard at the last place of shipment to the United States shall be deemed the dutiable value, except in certain cases not necessary to be noticed. Such value, the same section provides, shall be ascertained by adding to the value of the goods at the place of growth, production, or manufacture, the cost of transportation, shipment, and transshipment, with all the expenses incurred from the place of growth, production, or manufacture, whether by land or water, to the vessel in which shipment is made to the United States, and the value of the sack, box, or covering of any kind in which such goods are contained, commission at the usual rate, in no case less than two and one half per centum brokerage, and all export duties, together with all costs and charges paid or incurred for placing said goods on shipboard, and all other charges specified by law. 13 Stat. 217. 'Comment upon that provision is unnecessary, as it is clear that if the respective importations in this case had been made under it, the plaintiff would have no claim to recover back any portion of the duties assessed by the collector. But the lemons and oranges in this case were imported under the act of the 3d of March, 1S65. which required the collector within whose district the same were entered to cause the actual market value or wholesale price thereof at the period of the exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from which the same was imported, to be appraised; and the same section also provides in express terms “that such appraised value shall be considered the value upon which the duty shall be assessed.” Still the views of the department might be sustained if the twenty-third section had been continued in force; but that section is in terms repealed by the second provision of the seventh section of the act under which the respective importations were made. 13 Stat. 494. Section seven also enacts that all acts and parts of acts requiring duties to be assessed upon commissions, brokerage, cost of transportation, shipment, transshipment, and other like *1132costs and charges incurred in placing any goods, wares, or merchandise on shipboard, shall be repealed, and expressly provides, in ■conclusion, that all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed.
Expressed, as the intention of congress is in that provision, in plain and unambiguous language, it furnishes the absolute rule of ■decision which is obligatory upon the court. Under that provision, therefore, the dutiable value of imported merchandise is the actual market value or wholesale price thereof at the period of exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from which the same was imported into the United States, without any addition for commissions, brokerage, costs of transportation, shipment, or transshipment, or other like costs and charges in placing the goods on shipboard.
If any confirmation of this view be needed, except what is derived from the language employed, it is found in the fact that congress on the 28th of July. I860, re-enacted in substance and legal effect the provision requiring that all such costs and charges should be added to the actual market value, as the basis for the assessment of the duties. 14 Stat. S30. Considered in any point of view, it is quite clear that the dutiable value of merchandise imported between the 1st of April, 1SC3, and the 10th of August of the following year, when the existing act went into operation, was only the actual market value thereof, to be appraised, estimated, and ascertained as before explained.
Such being our conclusion, it only remains to ascertain whether the costs and charges in this case are properly to be regarded as an element of the actual market value of the merchandise within the meaning of that act of congress. Some descriptions of goods are purchased and sold in the foreign market in bulk, and are subsequently to the purchase and sale put into boxes, packages, or coverings, by the purchaser, for the preservation of the merchandise and the convenience of shipping. Other descriptions are put into boxes, packages, or coverings by the .producer, manufacturer, or wholesale merchant in the foreign country, and the merchandise is there purchased and sold for exportation in the boxes, packages, or coverings in which it is so placed by the producer, manufacturer, or wholesale merchant. The actual market value in the former case does not include the cost of the box, package, or covering within the meaning of that act of congress, as the boxes, packages, or coverings in such cases are purchased by the shipper, as the means of preserving the goods, and for the convenience of shipment. But no doubt is entertained that the words “actual market value,” without more, would include the cost of the box, package, or covering in all cases where the merchandise in question was actually purchased in the box, package, or covering, and is usually so purchased and sold for shipment in the foreign market, and where the price includes the box, package, or covering as well as the goods therein contained. Barnard v. Morton [Case No. 1,005]; Grinnell v. Lawrence [Id. 5,831]; Belcher v. Linn, 24 How. [65 U. S.] 535; Knight v. Schell, 24 How. [65 U. S.] 530; Wilson v. Maxwell [Case No. 17,824],
The defendant as well as the plaintiff agrees, that the general custom of shippers of lemons and oranges at Palermo is, if the fruit is purchased in bulk, to have it packed in boxes for shipment in substantially the same manner as the lemons and oranges were packed in this case. All of the lemons and oranges in this case were purchased in bulk at a certain rate by the thousand, and were afterwards selected and packed “one by one” in boxes, and transported to the place of shipment. Evidently the expense of the boxes and the labor of selecting and packing the fruit were wholly separate from the price paid in the purchase of the same, and it is equally clear that it was incurred to preserve the fruit, and for the convenience of shipment. Undoubtedly such fruit is usually bought and sold here, by wholesale merchants and jobbers, in the boxes, and without any additional charge for the box, but that circumstance cannot affect the question under consideration, as the inquiry is as to the actual market value or wholesale price of the merchandise in the principal markets of the country from which the same was imported.
Judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $1,864.50, with interest from the time of actual payment.