Court Opinion

ID: 94888
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-28 16:37:59+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:49.781381
License: Public Domain

170 U.S. 628 (1898)
UNITED STATES
v.
LIES.
No. 235.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued April 26, 1898.
Decided May 23, 1898.
CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.
*632 Mr. Solicitor General for the United States.
Mr. W. Wickham Smith for Lies & Co. Mr. Charles Curie was on his brief.
MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court.
The Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court was right in refusing the request of the Government to reverse the order of the board of general appraisers. The ground of the refusal of the Circuit Court was that the United *633 States had not proceeded in accordance with the provisions of section 15 of the act above quoted in order to have the right to ask for such reversal, and that when the importers, who had sought the review pursuant to the statute, conceded the correctness of the decision of the board of general appraisers and withdrew further opposition, it was the duty of the court to affirm the decision of the board, and the Government could not be heard to ask for a reversal of the order in the absence of an appeal by it.
The act of 1890 (above cited), under which reviews in relation to revenue decisions are to be taken, was passed "to simplify the laws in relation to the collection of the revenues." It provides a particular system of procedure for obtaining a review of the decisions of the collector and of the board of general appraisers in revenue matters. Compliance with the provisions of the act is necessary in order that a review may be had on the part and for the benefit of the Government as well as on that of the importers.
Under section 14, the decision of the collector is final and conclusive unless the owner, if dissatisfied with the decision, give notice in writing to the collector setting forth therein distinctly and specifically his objections. If such notice be given, the collector transmits the invoice and all the papers and exhibits connected therewith to the board of general appraisers, which then examines and decides the case thus submitted, and the decision of the board, or that of a majority, is final and conclusive upon all persons interested therein, except in cases where an application is filed in the Circuit Court, within the time and in the manner provided for in the following (fifteenth) section.
In that section, provision is made not only for a review by the importer, but it expressly includes the case where the collector or the Secretary of the Treasury shall be dissatisfied with the decision of the board, and it provides that the importer or the collector, or the Secretary of the Treasury, may, within thirty days after the decision, and not afterwards, apply to the Circuit Court of the United States for a review of the questions of law and fact involved in such decision. *634 The section provides further that the application shall be made by filing in the office of the clerk of the Circuit Court a concise statement of the errors of law and fact complained of, and by serving a copy of such statement on the collector in the case of a review on the part of the importer, and in case of a review on the part of the collector this copy is to be served on the importer, consignee or agent, as the case may be.
If therefore the Government, through the collector or the Secretary of the Treasury, seeks to review a decision made by the board of general appraisers because either of such officers may think such decision is in any or all of its provisions too favorable to the importer, the section (15) provides the way and the only way in which that review is to be obtained. If neither officer should take the proceedings so provided for, by applying for a review and filing with the clerk the statement of the errors of law and fact of which he complains and by serving a copy upon the importer, then the officer could not ask for a reversal of the decision, for it is clear that the appeal on the part of the importer would not give the Government that right. What would be the purpose of the provision for filing and serving this paper defining the errors of law and fact complained of, if, without it, the decision or any part of it made by the board could be reversed upon the application of the Government made on the appeal of the importer? The plan of the statute evidently contemplates action by both parties if both are dissatisfied.
We do not think the act can be fairly construed as meaning that where one party takes an appeal and files his statement of the errors of law and fact complained of by him and serves the same upon the opposite party, the latter can without himself making any application for a review, and, without filing or serving any statement of errors complained of, seek a reversal of the decision of the board upon any ground whatever. The fact that one party appeals furnishes no reason for holding that the other can obtain all the benefits of an appeal himself, without complying in any particular with the statute giving an appeal. There would be no reason *635 or fairness in so providing, and we are of opinion the statute properly construed does not so provide.
When therefore the case is before the Circuit Court upon the sole application of the importer, and he then admits that his appeal cannot be supported in law, and concedes that the decision of the board of general appraisers should be affirmed, the court ought to affirm that decision, and the Government cannot be heard to claim that the decision of the board or any part thereof should be reversed.
It is said that the Circuit Court, when the case was called and the importer conceded that the decision of the board of general appraisers was right, should have dismissed the case, and that it ought not to have affirmed the judgment of the board. The proceedings up to the time when the case was called in the Circuit Court had been regular, and the case was properly pending in that court for the purpose of a review upon the appeal of the importer. It lost no jurisdiction to proceed because of the confession of the importer that his appeal was without merit, but, on the contrary, when the confession was made, it amounted to the same thing as if after opposition the court had so decided, and, in that case, of course, the judgment would be affirmed.
When section fifteen provides that the Circuit Court shall "proceed to hear and determine the questions of law and fact involved in such decision," it means the decision of the board of general appraisers, which was properly brought before the court by virtue of an application regularly filed to obtain such review by the party against whom the decision was made, and we do not think it was ever intended to permit the court to reverse the decision at the instance of a party who had asked for no review and taken no proceedings to obtain it. This would be neither just nor fair, and it would result in erasing from the statute the provision for filing and serving the statement of the questions of law and fact complained of and a review of which was the object of the application. The statute ought not to be so construed as to permit such a review unless its language plainly demands it, which is not the case in this instance.
*636 In the case of In re Crowley, 50 Fed. Rep. 165, the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York decided this principle, only in that case it was against the importer. The collector sought a review of the decision of the board of general appraisers and the court affirmed the decision as made, but declined the importer's request to examine the question whether the board had correctly determined certain other matters, for the reason that the importer had made no statement of any error of law or fact complained of touching that decision, and had made no application for a review of the decision in that particular. We think the same rule applies here.
Whether the collector has any right to reliquidate for the purpose of assessing higher duties under some sections of the Revised Statutes, where an error is alleged to have been discovered in the original liquidation, it is not necessary to here determine. He has no right under this statute to a reversal of the decision of the board of general appraisers.
The cases cited by the learned counsel for the Government in relation to the California land titles, United States v. Ritchie, 17 How. 525, and Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall. 363, we think have no application, and do not aid in the proper construction of the act before us.
Although the Circuit Court has, upon the application of the parties, power to take further testimony after the case is brought before it, and to that extent it may be regarded as something in the nature of a new proceeding, yet the proper procedure in deciding the appeal is in nowise altered thereby, and unless a party has appealed, and filed and served his statement as above mentioned, the court ought not to reverse on his motion.
It is immaterial that the application is not named an appeal. It is such in substance, and the grounds and reasons for the appeal are to be stated. Although the board of general appraisers may not be a court, yet the proceedings to review its determination are pointed out by the statute, and they must be substantially followed and obeyed.
If the Government desire to review any decision of the *637 board, it can do so by complying with the statute and stating wherein it complains of such decision. If it make no complaint, it may be regarded as satisfied with the decision as made.
As the Government in this case took no proceedings to review the decision of the board of general appraisers, it cannot be heard to object to an affirmance of such decision.
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals must be
Affirmed.