« AnteriorContinuar »
Merchandise exported from Cuba and imported into the United States since said treaty became operative is dutiable at the rates prescribed in the tariff act of 1897, levying duties on "articles imported from foreign countries." Fleming v. Page (9 How., 603) and In re Saxon (G. A. 4145) applied.-T. D. 21738 (G. A. 4594).
EXPORT-IMPORT.—Merchandise transported from New Orleans to Santiago de Cuba while that place was within the military occupation of the United States must be deemed to be “exported ” from this country. The fact that it is afterwards returned to New Orleans without having been landed does not take it out of the category of “ imported merchandise," dutiable under the United States tariff laws. McGlinchy v. United States (4 Cliff., 312; 16 Fed. Cases, 118) followed.
Cuba is none the less foreign territory within the meaning of the act of June 6, 1900, because it is under a military governor appointed by and representing the President in the work of assisting the inhabitants to establish a government of their own.-Neely v. Henkel (180 U. S., 109, 120).
Goods Lost Overboard After Importation.—An importation is complete when goods are brought within the limits of a port of entry, with the intention of unlading them there, and the right of the Government to duties accrues immediately upon importation. It is immaterial that, before being unladen from the vessel, the merchandise was lost overboard, so that the customs officers could not retain control of it. U., S. v. Ten Thousand Cigars (2 Curt., 437; 28 Fed. Cas., 38) and U. S. v. Boyd (24 Fed. Rep., 692, 694) followed.-T. D. 22828 (G, A, 4869).
Hawaii, Customs Duties.---The provision of the joint resolution for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands, which retained in force the same customs duties between such islands and the ports of the United States as formerly, is constitutional.-Crossman v. U. S. (105 Fed. Rep., 608). Imports from the Hawaiian Islands.
The protest of the importers claimed the unconstitutionality of legislation continuing in force tariff duties between the Hawaiian Islands and the United States, as being in violation of those clauses of the Constitution which provide (a) that duties shall be uniform throughout the United States; (b) that no tax shall be laid on articles exported from any State.
Held that the protest should be overruled, the question being deemed one of sufficient importance to require the determination of the Supreme Court. Note (182 U. S., 221) The Insular Cases.”—T. D. 22400 (G. A. 4735). Isle of Pines—Foreign country.
The Isle of Pines is a part of Cuba, and therefore a foreign country within the meaning of the enacting clause of the tariff act of 1897, and importations therefrom are subject to the tariff laws of the United States. ---Pearcy v. Stranahan (U. S.); T. D. 28108. Merchandise from the High Seas.
The jurisdiction of the Board of General Appraisers, sitting as a board of classification under the authority conferred by section 11 of the customs administrative act of June 10, 1890, does not extend to a review of the question whether an article has been imported or not, or whether or not it was brought from a foreign country. The Insular Cases (182 U. S., 221 ; 21 Sup. Ct. Rep., 742); In re Goetze, G. A. 4967 (T. D. 23191), and In re Toma, G. A. 5042 (T. D. 23417), followed.-T. D. 27912 (G. A. 6541).
Where glass demijohns containing floral waters were broken in transitu, so as to waste the contents and destroy the commercial value of the entire import: tion, a deduction of duty will be made on the ground that the goods were never imported.-T. D. 29494 (G. A. 6854). Reimported WI ky.
Whisky, the product or manufacture of the United States, which, after being exported from bonded warehouse, is reimported into this country, is dutiable under section 27, tariff act of July 24, 1897, on the basis of the quantity or number of gallons contained at the time of reimportation, and not at the date of exportation.—T. D. 21504 (G. A. 4527). Shortage-Allowance for.
EVIDENCE AT HEARING.—The affidavit making the denial, prescribed by article 1452 of the Customs Regulations of 1899 (as amended by T. D. 27713), now published as article 1063 of Customs Regulations of 1908 is admissible in evidence if filed with the board at or prior to the hearing of the case, and will be given effect as satisfactory denial of the receipt of the goods by the importer.— T. D. 29543 (G. A. 6865). Shortage-Loss of Goods in Bond.
INSPECTOR'S REPORT.-The mere report of a discharging inspector is not enough to establish a shortage of imported merchandise, not corroborated by the oath of the importer denying that he received the alleged missing goods, or other satisfactory evidence. In re Hempstead, G. A. 3886 (T. D. 18084), following Merwin v. Magone (70 Fed. Rep., 776; 17 C. C. A., 361 ; U. S. v. Park, 77 Fed. Rep., 608, distinguished).
Loss OF GOODS IN BOND.--A loss of goods while en route from the port of original importation to the port of ultimate destination is a loss of merchandise constructively in a bonded warehouse. In re Ellison, G. A. 5482 (T. D. 24796). Such a loss does not present a case within the jurisdiction of the Board of General Appraisers. Ferry v. United States (85 Fed. Rep., 550; 29 C. C. A., 345).
BURDEN OF PROOF IN SHowing WHERE Loss OCCURRED.—The burden of proof is on an importer to show that an alleged loss of goods occurred while in transit to the United States and before importation. Where the evidence fails to show this satisfactorily, relief from payment of duties can not be granted.-T. D. 25802 (G. A. 5857.) Shortage-Method of Ascertaining Weight.
Where the importer fails to furnish the proof of shortage as required by article 1452, the collector is prohibited, in assessing duty, from making allowance for any shortage. When such merchandise is subject to a specific duty per pound, but is imported in packages, and the shortage consists of a number of said packages, it is proper and lawful for the collector to ascertain the weight of the missing packages by applying thereto the average weight of the packages received, and accordingly to assess duty upon the total amount stated in the invoice.-T. D. 26647 (G. A. 6128). Taxing Power of States-When Applicable to Imported Merchandise.
Imports are not subject to taxation by a State while they retain their distinctive character as imports, in the hands of the importer.-Brown v. Maryland (12 Wheaton, 419).
Packages removed for sale from the case in which imported have lost their character as imports and are subject to taxation as other property in the State.-May v. New Orleans, 187 U. S., 496.
DECISIONS UNDER THE ACT OF 1894.
Date When Act became a Law.
Goods arrived August 7, 1894, entered and duties paid August 8, and entry liquidated August 28, were subject to duty under the act of 1890 and not under the act of 1894. The provision of section 1 of the act of 1894, which took effect August 28, 1894, that from and after the first day of August there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon articles imported from foreign countries the rate of duty provided by that act, does not apply to transactions completed when the act became a law.-United States v. Burr (159 U. S., 78). Shortage-Allowance for.
In the absence of evidence required by article 922 of the regulations, designed to show that the missing articles were never laden on the vessel or were lost or destroyed during the voyage, or, in other words, that they never were in fact imported, the protest against assessing duty is overruled.-T. D. 15578 (G. A. 2838). Shortage No Allowance for Coal Jettisoned Within the Limits of Port
of Arrival. The coal jettisoned after entry was an imported article within the meaning of the law.-T. D. 18630 (G. A. 4028).
DECISIONS UNDER THE ACT OF 1890.
The merchandise, a pump of English manufacture, was sent from San Francisco as a part of a wrecking apparatus to be used in an attempt to raise an American steamer sunk on the coast of British Columbia. The pump was returned, and on its entry at San Francisco was assessed for duty under paragraph 215.
The sole question to consider is whether or not there is any provision of law which exempts this imported article from duty. None has been cited, and we know of none.-T. D. 15321 (G. A. 2755). Transit Baggage Through Canada.
Foreign merchandise contained in baggage shipped from one port to another in the United States through Canada, without being sealed by a customs officer, is dutiable on its return to the United States.-T. D. 16418 (G. A, 3207).
DECISIONS UNDER THE ACT OF 1883.
“ Import " and Export " Defined.
The word “export as used in the customs laws means the taking of goods cut of one country into another and there unlading them, and it is entirely immaterial whether the owner intends to bring them back again. It is the converse of " import."-Kid v. Flagler (C. C.), 54 Fed. Rep., 367.
DECISIONS UNDER STATUTES PRIOR TO THE ACT OF 1883.
California-Duties Legally Exacted After Signing of Treaty of Peaco,
1848 to 1849. Duties collected in California between February 3, 1848 (the date of the treaty of peace), and November 13, 1849 (when the collector entered on the duties of his office), were not illegally exacted and can not be recovered back. Cross v. Harrison, 16 How., 164; 21 U. S., 66.
Captured Goods Sold Under Order of Court.
If captured goods claimed by a neutral owner be by consent sold under order of the court and afterwards by the final sentence of the court the proceeds are ordered to be restored to such owner, the amount of the duties due to the United States upon the importation of the goods must be paid.-Brig Concord, 9 Cranch, 387; 3 U, S., 390. Foreign Attachment Proceedings.
A collector of customs can not in a foreign attachment proceeding in a State court be made garnishec with respect to goods held for duties, and if he is served with a writ of attachment in such proceedings the service will be set aside.-Fischer v. Daudistal, 9 Fed. Rep., 145. “ Import " and " Export" Defined.
The laws of the United States in relation to commerce and revenue use the word “import” in its commercial sense.
The importation of merchandise into the United States implies bringing the goods and productions of other countries into the United States from a foreign jurisdiction.—U. S. v. Forrester (Newh., 81), 25 Fed. Cas., 1147. • Imports " and " Exports Refer Exclusively to Property.
The words “inspection laws, * imports," and "exports, as used in clause 2, section 10, article 1, of the Constitution, have exclusive reference to property. They can not apply to a free man.
A State can not impose a head tax on alien passengers to raise money for the execution of its inspection laws.—People v. Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, 10 Fed. Rep., 357 ; 107 U. S., 59. Nonimportation.
Although included in the invoice, goods lost on the voyage are not subject to duty.–United States v. Nash, 4 Cliff.. 107; 27 Fed. Cas., 75. Occupation of Foreign Territory by United States.
The capture and occupation of Tampico during the war with Mexico, though sufficient to cause it to be regarded by other nations as a part of our territory, did not make it a part of the United States under our Constitution and laws. It remained foreign country within the meaning of the revenue laws of the United States.-Fleming v. Page, 9 How., 603; 18 U. S., 278. Reimportation.
Foreign goods, once lawfully admitted into the United States, if re-exported or voluntarily placed within the limits of a foreign jurisdiction lose the char. acter imparted to them by such admission, and if reimported into the United States it must be done in conformity with the law governing the importation of goods of foreign growth or manufacture from a foreign country.-Ten Cases of Opium, 1 Deady, 62; 23 Fed. Cas., 810. Sovereignty of the United States—Ports in Possession of the Enemy.
By the conquest and military occupation of a portion of the territory of the United States by a public enemy that portion is to be deemed a foreign country so far as respects our revenue laws.
Goods imported into territory of the United States occupied by a public enemy are not imported into the United States and are subject to such duties only as the conqueror muy impose.
The subsequent evacuation of the conquered territory by the enemy and resumption of authority by the United States can not change the character of past transactions. The jus postliminii does not apply to the case, and goods previously imported do not become liable to pay duty to the United States by the resumption of their sovereignty over the conquered territory:-U. S. v. Rice, 4 U. S., 391 ; U. S. v. Hayward, 2 Gall., 485 ; 26 Fed. Cas., 240. States Prohibited from Levying Duties on Imports or Exports.
The terms “imports" and "exports" in article 1, section 10, clause 2, of the Constitution, prohibiting States, without the consent of Congress, from levying duties on imports or exports, has reference to goods brought from or carried to foreign countries alone, and not to goods transported from one State to another.
A general State tax, levied alike upon all property, does not infringe that clause of the Constitution if it happens to fall upon goods which, though not then intended for exportation, are subsequently exported. ---Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S., 622. Taxing Power of States—When Applicable to Imported Merchandise.
Goods imported from a foreign country upon which the duties and charges at the customhouse have been paid are not subject to State taxation while remaining in the original cases unbroken and unsold in the hands of the importer, whether the tax be imposed upon the goods as imports or upon the goods as part of the general property of the citizens of the State, which is subject to an ad valorem tax.
Goods imported do not lose their character as imports and become incorporated into the mass of the property of the State. until they have passed from the control of the importer or been broken up by him from their original cases.-Low v. Austin, 13 Wall., 29.
The principle of the preceding decision is applicable to a case where, although the mode of collecting the tax on the article made in the State was different from the mode of collecting the tax on the articles brought from another State into it, yet the amount paid was, in fact, the same on the same article in whatever State.
The effect of the act being such as just described, it was held to institute no legislation which discriminated against the products of sister States, but merely to subject them to the same rate of taxation which similar articles paid that were manufactured within the State, and, accordingly, that it was not an attempt to regulate commerce but an appropriate and legitimate exercise of the taxing power of the States.-Hinson v. Lott, 8 Wall., 148.
The term “import" as used in that clause of the Constitution which says that "no State shall levy any duty or imposts on imports or exports " docs not refer to articles imported from one State into another, but only to articles imported from foreign countries into the United States.- Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall., 123.
A State law requiring an importer to take a license and to pay $50 before he should be permitted to sell a package of imported goods is in conflict with that provision of the Constitution of the United States which prohibits a State from laying any imposts, etc., and also with the clause which declares that Congress shall have power to regulate commerce.
An impost or duty on imports is a custom or a tax levied on articles brought into a country, and is most usually secured before the importer is allowed to exercise his rights of ownership over them, because evasions of the law can be prevented more certainly by executing it while the articles are in custody. It would not, however, be less an impost or duty on the articles if it were to be levied on them after they are landed.-Brown v. State of Maryland, 7 U. S., 262.