GLANZ V. SPALDING.
(Oil'cuit COU1't, N. D. Illinois. May 26,1885.)
Section 7, act March 3, 1883, as to dutiable value of merchandise, construed.
SAME-SEAL-SKINS, DUTY ON.
Certain skins bought" undressed," or "in salt," brokerage, commissions, and packing charges on, not part of dutiable value.
Percy L. Shuman and Jo. II. Defrees, Jr., for plaintiff. Chester M. Dawes, Asst. U. S. Atty., for defendant. BLODGETT, J., (orally.) The plaintiff imported four lots of dressed
seal-skins, and the inspector, for the purpose of determining the dutiable value, added brokerage, commissions, fire insurance, cost of dressing, dyeing, and warehousing, which the plaintiff paid under protest, and appealed. There was an adverse decision on the appeal, and this suit was brought in apt time to recover the money thus paid. The proof shows that the skins in this case, as inthe usual course of trade in this class of goods, were bought "undressed," or "in salt," as it is called in London, at auction, and in this case the dyer or dresser of these goods acted as the plaintiff's agent in the purchase, and bid off the goods at the auction. He then dyed and dressed the goods, "machined them," as it is called,.-that is, passed them through a procesR by which the coarse hairs were taken out,-got them insured during the process of dressing and dyeing, and, when finished, packed and shipped them to the plaintiff, so that the cost to the importer of -these goods was made up of the price paid for the green skins at the auction; the auctioneer's commissions, called "lot money;" the cost of dressing, dyeing, machining, fire insurance during the process of dressing, and the interest on the money advanced by the agent and his commissions, and the cost of packing. Sections and 2908 authorized brokerage, commissions, cost of transportation from the place of purchase to the port of shipment, cost of packing, etc., to be added to the cost of the goods at the place where purchased, to make up the dutiable cost; but the act of March 3, 1883, repealed this section. The claim made to recover back the fire insurance item was abandoned on the trial, and the only question, therefore, in this case is as to the items of brokerage, commissions, and packing. I find that the brokerage, commissions, and packing were improperlyadded to the cost of the goods, since the repeal of sections 2907 and 2908, and the plaintiff should, therefore, have a finding in his favor for the amount of these items.
'tANADA V. SPALDING.
(Circuit Oourt, N. D. illinois.
CnsToMs DUTIES--:MERCHANT ApPRAISAL UNDER SECTION
The appraisement of the merchant appraisers shall be final, and deemed to lIC the true value, and the duties shall be levied thereon accordingly, and an importer is not estopped from going below his entry value on any single item of his invoice; and duty should be assessed upon the value returned by the mercbant appraisers.
S.nm-ADDITIONAL DUTY OF TWENTY PER CENT.
Untler the circumstances of this case penal duty was improperly assessed,'
At Law. Percy L. Shuman and Jo. II. Defrees, Jr., for plaintiff. Chester M. Dawes, Asst. U. S. Atty., for defendant. BLODGETT, J., (orally.) In 1883 and 1884 plaintiff imported three lots of Japanese "curios," which, as I understand from the proof, means rare or curious goods of Japanese manufacture. These goods were entered for duty upon the statement of their market value Or cost "in the country from which they were imported," but the collector of the port of Chicago, not being satisfied with the value as entered by the importer, caused the actual market value to be appraised, pursuant to the provisions of section 2900, Rev. St.; whereupon the importer gave notice of his dissatisfaction with the collector's appraisal, and called for the appointment of merchant appraisers, pursuant to the provisions of flection 2930, Rev. St. Such merchant appraisers were duly appointed, and examined and appraised the goods; whereupon the collector, upon their report, assessed an additional duty on such appraised value of 20 per cent. ad valorem, on the ground that the appraised value exceeded the entry value by 10 per cent. or more. It appears from the proof that the merchant appraisers reported many of the items of the goods in the invoices at prices below the eniry value, and that their appraisement, taken as a whole, did not make the value of the goods equal to 10 per cent. in addition to the entry value; but the collector, for the purpose of assessing the duty, disregarded all the valuations of the items in the invoices by the merchant appraisers, where they made the same lower than the entry value, and took, as the basis of duty, the entry value on all goods appraised below the entry value by the merchant appraisers, taking only the merchant appraisers' value where they had raised the valuation above that of the entry value; and upon this basis the appraised value would exceed the entry value by 10 per cent. The only question in the case is whether the importer is bound by his own entry value of each item in his invoice, or whether, when he calls for merchant appraisers, they are to examine the goods and put their valuation upon them without regard to the entry value. Section 2980, by its last clause, declares that the appraisal-that is, the