8. Where an invoice of quicksilver from London did not show that the article was the produce of Spain, and its invoice value was raised, by appraisal, to its true value in the London market, and the Collector imposed duty on the additional value, and a penalty for the undervaluation, and the importer had not proved or offered to prove, before the appraisers or the Collector, that the quicksilver was the produce of Spain: Held, that the additional duties and the penalty were properly imposed and collected, although the quicksilver was in fact the produce of Spain. Belmont v. Lawrence,

119

9. Where the invoice value of iron was raised by the official appraisers, on appraisal, and duty on the increase in value and a penalty for undervaluation were imposed, and the importer, on making entry of the iron, served on the Collector a written notice protesting "against the said increased appraisement, and against the exaction of the said increased duty and penalty," but was, at the same time, asked if he desired an appraisement by merchant appraisers, under section 17 of the Act of August 30th, 1842, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 564), and answered, that he did not, or did not ask one, and did not offer the fees for such appraisement: Held, that if the protest might have amounted to notice of dissatisfaction with the appraisement under that section, had the notice been delivered without qualification, yet the assertion of the importer at the time, that he did not ask a re-appraisement, took from it that effect. Fielden v. Lawrence, 120

10. Held, also, that the importer was bound to offer the appraisers' fees for a re-appraisement, in order to put the Collector in the wrong for not ordering one, and that, therefore, the appraisement by the official appraisers was conclusive as to value. id.

Held, also, that the protest did not comply with the Act of February 26th, 1845, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 727), and that, as it did not set forth distinctly the omission of the Collector 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 back those duties. id.

12. Where, on an invoice of woollen goods from Paris, the appraisers took, as a guide to their valuation, the market price of the goods in the principal 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, pursuant to section 17 of the Act of August 30th, 1842, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 564): Held, that under section 16 of the said Act, the appraisers were required to appraise the goods at their value at the time of purchase, and that the appraisement was void, and that the duties on the increase in valuation, and the penalty, were illegally exacted. Morlot v. Lawrence,

122

13. Twisted straw, being a stalk of rye straw split into two parts, and those parts twisted together, and being the raw material used in making straw laces, which are manufactured into hats and bonnets, not having been known in commerce, in the United States, until after the passage of the tariff Act of July 30th, 1846, cannot be charged with duties under any of the denominations of straw manufactures mentioned in Schedule C of section 11 of that Act, (9 U. S. Stat. at Large, 44, 45), but falls within the 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

14. Pulverized waste or flock or shoddy, being the refuse thrown off in the shearing or finishing of woollen cloths, having been imported and used in that state and under those names, prior to the tariff Act of July 30th, 1846, and being known in trade and

19. It is not necessary for the Collector to demand such certificate from the importer; but the importer must offer to the Collector such certificate, or a bond to produce it thereafter, in order to be entitled to an allowance for such depreciation. id.

20. Where, on an appraisal both by official appraisers and merchant appraisers, the invoice value of goods was raised, and duties on the increase were paid under a protest, which objected "that the appraisals and reappraisals were not fairly, impartially, or legally made, nor by persons unprejudiced and duly qualified to make them:" Held, that no action could be maintained to recover back such duties on account of any irregularity either in selecting or qualifying the appraisers, or otherwise, because the

protest did not, as required by the Act of February 26th, 1845, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 727), set forth distinctly the grounds of objection to the regularity and legality of the appraisements made, or wherein the appraisers were prejudiced or not duly qualified. Christ v. Maxwell,

129

21. The goods being the property of their manufacturer, when entered, and being consigned for sale to the party who entered them, and the Collector having imposed an additional duty or penalty of 20 per cent. for such undervaluation: Held, that it was not legally imposed under § 8 of the Act of July 30th, 1846, (9 U. S. Stat. at Large, 43), because that Act relates only to goods which have been actually purchased in a foreign market, and such qualification is not rescinded or modified by § 1 of the Act of March 3d, 1851, (9 U. S. Stat. at Large, 629).

id.

22. Held, also, that such additional duty or penalty was not authorized by § 17 of the Act of August 30th, 1842, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 564), or by § 13 of the Act of March 1st, 1823, (3 U. S. Stat. at Large, 734), for the like reason, and also because the increased duty or penalty specified in each of those acts is 50 per cent., and the Collector cannot exact a less or different id.

one.

23. Where iron was purchased in Wales, and sent from there to Liverpool, and was afterwards shipped from Liverpool to New York: Held, that the appraisement of the iron at its market value in Liverpool at the time of its shipment from that port, was proper, under section 16 of the Act of August 30th, 1842, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 563), and section 1 of the Act of March 3d, 1851, (9 Id., 629), Liverpool being a principal market of the country of the production of the iron. Goddard v. Maxwell,

131

31. Where a protest against the imposition of duties after appraisal, protested "against the payment of 15 per cent. advance, and the penalty therefore accruing on velvets contained in the entries, because we are fully satisfied that they are fully invoiced by the manufacturers:" Held, that the price fixed by the appraisers was conclusive as to the dutiable value of the goods, (Act of August 30th, 1842, 5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 564, §17), and that no evidence could be given against it. Hertz v. Maxwell,

137

32. Requisites of a protest against the imposition of duties, stated. id.

33. The discriminating duty of 10 per cent. imposed on merchandise imported in certain foreign vessels, by § 11 of the Act of August 30th, 1842, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 561), is not abolished by the Act of July 30th, 1846, (9 Id., 42). Stalker v. Maxwell, 138

34. Such discriminating duty continues,

46. The case of Griswold v. Lawrence, (1 Blatchf. C. C. R., 346), cited and approved. id.

47. Where an invoice of goods not purchased in a foreign market, but belonging to their producer, was entered at the Custom-House by their consignee, and, before any action was taken to determine the value of the goods, a corrected invoice was given to the Collector by the consignee: Held, that it was the duty of the Col"lector to take the valuation in the corrected invoice as the entry valuation, and that it was illegal for him to impose a penalty, as for undervaluation, because of the difference between the two invoices. Howland v. Maxwell,

146

48. Where, under such circumstances, the appraisers, without any valuation of the goods, added to the first invoice prices, exactly the difference between the two invoices, and a penalty of 20 per cent., for undervaluation, was imposed, because such difference exceeded 10 per cent.: Held, that, under sections 16 and 17 of the Act of August 30th, 1842, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 563, 564), an actual appraisal of purchased goods, as of the time of purchase, must be made, to authorize the imposition of a penalty of 20 per cent. for undervaluation. id.

49. An appraisement of imported goods by the public appraisers, is, under

17 of the Act of August 30th, 1842, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 564), conclusive as to the dutiable value of the

52. Under § 16 of the Act of August 30th, 1842, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 563), which requires "a charge for commissions at the usual rates to be added, on the appraisal of goods, to make up their dutiable value, the rates of the commissions must be ascertained in the same manner as the value of the goods, and a Collector has no authority, even under instructions from the Treasury Department, to charge an arbitrary rate of commission. Munsell v. Maxwell, 364

53. The case of Lennig v. Maxwell, (ante, p. 125), cited and approved. id.

54. A protest against the payment of 25 per cent. duty charged on thread laces, claiming that the laces are liable to a duty of only 20 per cent., is a sufficient protest, under the Act of February 26th, 1845, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 727). Steegman v. Maxwell,

365

55. Where a person engaged in the im

portation of thread laces, protested, in proper form, against the exaction of 25 per cent. duty on a particular importation, claiming that it was liable to only 20 per cent. duty, under a specified schedule of the tariff Act then in force, and added, in the same protest, "I mean this protest to apply to all like exactions heretofore paid, and to all future, and shall claim a return thereof: " Held, that that was a sufficient protest, under the said Act of 1845, against the exaction, when made on any future importation by the same party, without the repetition of the protest on each importation. id.

57. A protest "that no penalty of 20 per cent., under section 8 of the Act of 1846, can be exacted except where the importer has added to his invoice price on entry," is a sufficient protest, under the Act of February 26th, 1845, (5 U. S. Stat. at Large, 727), to raise the question whether the Collector is authorized to impose the penalty appointed by § 8 of the Act of July 30th, 1846, (9 Id., 43), where no addition has been made by the importer to the value of his entry. Vaccari v. Maxwell, 368

58. Under § 8 of said Act of July 30th, 1846, a Collector has authority, upon an appraisement, to assess the additional duty for the undervaluation of purchased goods, which is there prescribed, although the importer has made no addition, in the entry, to the invoice value of the goods. id.

59. The cases of Goddard v. Maxwell, (ante, p. 131), and Morris v. Maxwell, (ante, p. 143), cited and approved. id.

60. Where an invoice of lemons, though dated at Genoa, the place of departure of the vessel, stated the value of the lemons free on board at San Remo, which was a port 70 miles from Genoa, and on the track of the vessel to New York, and the chief market of the country for lemons, and added 2 per cent. commissions, and the lemons were taken on board at San Remo, and bills of lading were there signed, and the lemons were entered at New York as embarked from San Remo, and the invoice showed the true price of the lemons at Genoa and San Remo, and the public appraisers, and also appraisers on appeal, raised the invoice value, by adding the freight on the lemons from San Remo to Genoa, and also by increasing the charge for commissions, and, these additions increasing the

invoice value by more than 10 per cent., an additional duty or penalty of 20 per cent. was imposed under § 8 of said Act of July 30th, 1846, which was paid under a protest "that the expenses of transportation from the place of original shipment to Genoa are not dutiable charges, that the reappraisement is illegal, because the price is made to include charges, and that no penalty can be exacted for addition of charges:" Held, that this protest was, in connection with the invoice, a sufficient protest under the said Act of February 26th, 1845, to notify the Collector that the valuation by the appraisers of the charges of transportation between Genoa and San Remo was complained of. id.

61. The invoice and entry in a case, may, ordinarily, be regarded as composing part of the protest. id.