Court Opinion

ID: 6607650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 20:15:15.438507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:58:14.650535
License: Public Domain

•March 15,
Marshall, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the court to the following effect:
The distinction tajeen by the counsel for the defendants in error, between a district and a port of entry, is correct. The duties did not accrue in the fiscal sense of the term, until the vessel arrived at the port of entry. If the question had been doubtful, the court would have respected the uniform construction which it is understood has been given by the treasury department of the United States upon similar questions. It is understood that in case of an increase of duty, the United States have always demanded and received 'the additional duty if. the goods have not arrived at the fort of. entry before the time fixed for the commencement of such additional duty, although the vessel may have arrived within the collection district before that time. The same rule of construction is to be observed when there is a diminution of duty.
Judgment affirmed.