« ZurückWeiter »
be taxed only on a final hearing, and | 4. Under $ 1 of the Act of March 26th,
prescribing punishment for the offence
cree on an appeal in Admiralty, on a necessary, in order to give to this
id. the high scas, and not merely upon
waters within the jurisdiction of the
in ports, havens and basins, that are
1853, (10 U. S. Stat. at Large, 162), ject to territorial jurisdiction. id.
Circuit Courts, 1.
Parties To Actions, 3, 4.
See COLLISION, 18, 23.
Patents, 9, 89, 54 to 61.
3. But the Federal Courts of inferior
jurisdiction cannot take cognizance
See CHARTER-Party, 5.
2. Held, also, that, under that Act, rocoa
is not free from duty, under that
See Costs, 2, 10, 11.
See DUTIES, 87, 88.
3. Held, also, that, under that Act, rocoa
is a non-enumerated article, and is
See INDICTMENT, 5.
4. An invoice of Irish linens as en.
tered, carried out the prices in gross,
with a credit underwritten, " deduct
discount allowed for cash, 71 per
cent." The invoice prices, with the
allowance of such discount, gave the
appraisers found the invoice to be
correct, as made out, and did not
appraise the linens according to their
judgment, but, in obedience to Cir.
cular Instructions from the Secretary
invoice prices less a discount of only
21 per cent., and duties were exacted
on the remaining 5 per cent. The
usage of the trade was to make up
and reduce those to the true market
value by discounts or rebatements :
Held, that, under the usage proved,
rived from the seed of a vegetable, duced by the rebatement, and not its
115 | 7. Under the Act of February 26th,
1845, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 727), / 11. Held, also, that the protest did not
id. to order a re-appraisement, or that
the appraisers valued the iron at the
time of shipment and not at the time
of purchase, as grounds of objection
to the payment of the duties imposed,
the importer could not raise those
objections, in an action to recover
goods from Paris, the appraisers took,
as a guide to their valuation, the
market price of the goods in the prin-
cipal markets of France at the period
of exportation, and, on their report, the
value was raised 10 per cent, and more
above the invoice value, and, for that
cause, 50 per cent. on the amount of
legal duties was added thereto, pur-
gust 30th, 1842, (5 U. S. Stat, at Large,
564): Held, that under section 16 of
quired to appraise the goods at their
the duties on the increase in valuation,
and the penalty, were illegally exact-
ed. Morlot v. Lawrence, 122
straw split into two parts, and those
parts twisted together, and being the
raw material used in making straw
hats and bonnets, not having been
States, until after the passage of the
the denominations of straw manufac-
tures mentioned in Schedule of
section 11 of that Act, (9 U. S. Stat.
provisions of section 3, and is subject
to a duty of 20 per cent., not being
otherwise specially provided for in
the Act. Rheimer v. Maxwell, 124
bound to offer the appraisers' fees being the refuse thrown off in the
commerce under those names, is lia- protest did not, as required by the
waste or shoddy," and is not liable regularity and legality of the ap-
id. party who entered them, and the
Collector having imposed an addi-
Act of March 2d, 1799, (1 U. S. Stat. for such undervaluation: Held, that
spect to depreciations of the Austrian or penalty was not authorized by $ 17
id. of the Act of March 1st, 1823, (3 U.
S. Stat, at Large, 734), for the like rea-
ance for any depreciation of the Aus- duty or penalty specified in each of
to demand such certificate from the and sent from there to Liverpool, and
id, shipment from that port, was proper,
under section 16 of the Act of August
official appraisers and merchant ap- 563), and section 1 of the Act of
the additional duty or penalty of 20 even though the general tariff of du-
id. the United States, (Article 1, section
9), that “no tax or duty shall be laid
imposition of duties, stated. Sadler does not apply to the imposition of
134 taxes on foreign vessels. Aguirre v.
Maxwell, (ante, p. 131), as to protests, 37. The Act of June 30th, 1834, (4 U.
id. S. Stat. at Large, 741), concerning
tonnage duty on Spanish vessels, is
135 amount of such tonnage duty is
wholly within the discretion of Con-
id, making the appraisal. Roller v. Max-
gust 30th, 1842, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large,
sition of duties after appraisal, pro- March 3d, 1851, (9 Id., 629), the ap-
137 undervaluation of imports. id,
32. Requisites of a protest against the 43. The authority to iropose such pen-
alty is not limited to cases where an
entry has been made of the imports,
cent. imposed on merchandise import- added to the cost or value given by
80 far as concerns the period of time