praisement, and the appraisers were directed to ascertain the value of the goods when purchased at the place from which they were imported. If the value thus ascertained was twenty-five per cent. above the value stated in the invoice as the actual cost, the invoice was deemed fraudulent, and the value ascertained by the appraisers was taken as the basis for the estimate of duties. It was the market value at the place of importation, and at the time of the purchase. The object of the collector was to ascertain the actual cost, as that was the basis on which the duties were estimated. For that purpose the appraisers were to ascertain the market value, and the law declares that a certain degree of variance shall be conclusive as to the fraud.

In 1823, there came for the first time the distinction between goods purchased and those procured otherwise. As to purchased goods, the oath of the importer is that the invoice contains a true account of the actual cost of the goods, while as to those otherwise procured, it is that the invoice contains a just and faithful valuation at their fair market value at the time and place of procurement. Under this act the appraisers ascertained the value of the goods when purchased, at the time of purchase, or when otherwise procured at the time of procurement; this was done when the goods were imported from the same country in which they were produced or manufactured. But if the goods were imported from a country other than that of their origin, then the value was ascertained at the time of their exportation to this country; the value however is the value in the country of production in all cases.3 The same rule prevailed under the

various acts down to 1851. Under the act of 1842 there are numerous cases showing the existence of the same rule.1

ter.

In 1857, Congress changed the policy of the country as to this matUnder this act the value to be ascertained by the appraisers is that of the goods in the principal markets of the country from which they are imported. No reference is made to their value in the country of their production, or to the time of their purchase. The time is the period of exportation, and the place that from which they are imported. Cutch, a product of the East Indies, was imported from Halifax. The appraisers decided that London and Liverpool were the principal markets of Great Britain, the country from which it was imported. This was correct, and the decision of the appraisers as to

Maxwell v. Griswold, 10 How. 242; Marlot v. Lawrence, 3 Blatch. C. C. 122; Mait

land v. Lawrence, 3 Blatch. C. C. 378; Griswold v. Lawrence, 1 Blatch, C. C. 599.

what are the principal markets of a country, is conclusive.1 The word country embraces all the possessions of a foreign State, however widely separated. The act of 1865 seems to continue this policy. The appraised value is that of the actual market value or wholesale price at the period of exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from which the same shall have been imported.*

What is the value to be ascertained by the appraisers now? The general rule now is that the appraisers determine "the actual market value, or wholesale price thereof, at the period of the exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from which the same has been imported." This section of the Revised Statutes carries out the policy of Congress heretofore noticed under the act of 1851. The place to which we look to ascertain market value is the country of importation, the time is the period of exportation. No. reference is made here to the country in which the merchandise was produced or manufactured, and if there were no other provision in the statutes it would apply to all merchandise, without reference to the country of origin. But the section immediately preceding this provides for ascertaining the value, where the merchandise has been imported into the United States from a country in which it has not been manufactured or produced. The rule in such cases is that they take current market value, or wholesale price, at the principal markets of the country of production or manufacture, at the time when the goods are exported. There are two rules, one applying when the merchandise is exported from the country of its origin, and the other when it is not; in each we look to the period of exportation as to the time, and the difference is only as to the place. In the first, where origin and place of export are the same, it is the principal markets of the country of exportation; in the second, where origin and export are not the same, it is the principal markets of the country of origin, not of export. This section (§ 2905), reproduces the distinction as to the country of origin, which was obliterated by the act of 1851.

What are the principal markets of the country of exportation? The word country is not used in its geographical sense, but in its political sense, so that when an article is imported from Halifax, its value may be that of London or Liverpool; from any part of Portugal may have its value fixed by that at Cadiz; and merchandise manufactured in

1 Stairs v. Peaslee, 18 How. 521, 525, 526; Morris v. Maxwell, 3 Blatch. C. C. 143; Grinnell v. Lawrence, 1 Blatch. C. C. 346, 349; Barnard v. Morton, 1 Sprague, 186; Ballard v. Thomas, 19 How. 382.

22 Bright. Dig. Laws U. S. p. 258, § 116; 13 Stat. U. S. p. 493, § 1.

3 R. S. U. S. § 2906.

4 R. S. U. S. § 2905.

Rheims may have its value fixed by evidence of the market value at Paris, although one hundred miles distant.1 What are the principal markets is a question to be decided by the appraisers.

Market value is the price at which the owner or producer holds the merchandise for sale the price at which it is freely offered for sale in the market, such price as he is willing to receive if the goods are sold in the ordinary course of trade. As evidence of this market value, the fact that the claimants named prices at which they would sell, and below which they would not sell; an answer by them to a letter containing a mercantile proposition, fixing certain prices as the lowest cash prices for export; letters of other manufacturers of wines of the same grade, giving prices of their own wines, and even evidence of cost of manufacture, with manufacturer's profit added, may be received. The price lists of dealers are admissible, and so are letters of third parties abroad, written to other parties, offering to sell at certain rates, if written in the ordinary course of business. This evidence was admitted in proceedings to forfeit the goods for making entry by a false invoice, the value stated being below the actual market value. The appraisers may act upon any such evidence.

3

The appraisers may examine the importer on oath as to any matter they deem material touching the value of the merchandise, and require the production of any letters, invoices or accounts in his possession relating to the same. The testimony taken in writing by them is to be preserved, and transmitted to the Secretary of the Treasury when he shall require it.5 If necessary, in the discretion of the secretary, he may authorize the collector to require the importer to give bond to produce in a limited period, evidence of the class or denomination of the merchandise, or the rate of duty to which it is subject."

Formerly the appraisers did not ascertain the quantity or weight of merchandise, but confined their investigations to the value.' Now it seems to be a part of their duty to ascertain the quantity ; the phrase," the number of such yards, parcels or quantities," in section 2902 of the Revised Statutes will bear that construction.

If

1 Stairs v. Peaslee, 18 How. 525; 1209 Quarter Casks of Wine, 2 Ben. 249; Goddard v. Maxwell, 3 Blatch. C. C. 131; Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall. 114, 143.

114.

23109 Cases of Champagne, 1 Ben. 241.

31 Ben. 241; Six Cases of Silk Ribbons, 3 Ben. 536; Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall.

Fennerstein's Champagne, 3 Wall. 145, Wayne, Clifford and Davies, JJ., dissenting. R. S. U. S. § 2925.

R. S. U. S. § 2922.

Marriott v. Brune, 9 How. 286.

the weight, quantity or measure in the invoice does not correspond with that of the appraisers, or the weighers and gaugers, the importer is to bear the expense of the weighing, gauging or measuring.1

Where goods are damaged during the voyage, the appraisers are to ascertain that damage, and the proof as to damage must be lodged in the custom house in ten days from the landing of the merchandise. Under the acts of 1799 and 1823, the claim for damage was required. to be made before entry. The phraseology of the statute now would indicate that the appraisers are to ascertain the damage as a matter of course whenever their attention is called to the matter, the only limitation on the right being that the proof shall be lodged within ten days as formerly. Wrecked goods are also to be appraised, but here the statute is express, that the appraisement shall be before entry. In all other respects the proceedings are the same as in the case of a reduction claimed on account of damage during the voyage. Where the entry of goods is incomplete for want of a manifest or original invoice, or from any other cause, or where the goods are damaged during the voyage, they are carried at once to a storehouse designated by the collector, and there remain until the particulars, cost and value are ascertained.5

§ 155. Dutiable Value-Additions to Invoice Value-Twenty per cent. Penalties.-The value which we have been considering is the appraised value, which is different from the value on which duties are imposed. The function of the appraised value now is what it was originally, a guide to ascertain whether the importer has correctly stated in the invoice the actual cost or market value, as required in the entry and the oaths thereto, a difference between these values of a certain amount being considered conclusive of fraud or undervaluation.6

The dutiable value is that upon which the collector estimates the duties or taxes. Originally it was upon the actual cost in the invoice, but this gave an advantage to the manufacturer over the purchaser. In the cost to the purchaser was necessarily included the profit of the manufacturer, so that, if each of them paid duties on the actual cost to them, there would be a discrimination in favor of the manufacturer or producer to the extent of the profit made by the manufacturer or

1 R. S. U. S. § 2922. This changes the rule laid down in Manhattan Gas Light Co. v. Maxwell, 2 Blatch. C. C. 405, where the court held that the importer was not liable to such expense. See § 2934. Medicines are examined as to quality, purity and fitness for

medical purposes.

2 Shelton v. Collector, 5 Wall. 113.

United States v. Tappan, 11 Wheat. 419.

4 R. S. U. S. § 2928.

producer when he sold his goods. This was remedied by the act of 1823, which required the manufacturer or producer to invoice and enter his merchandise not at the actual cost, but at the market value or wholesale price. And this distinction between a purchaser and producer or manufacturer is preserved in all the subsequent acts, and forms an important feature in the customs laws. The purchaser makes oath that the invoice contains the actual cost including certain charges, and the person who has not purchased, that the invoice contains their fair market value including certain charges.

The dutiable value consists of six different items:

2

a. The first item, which is the basis from which we start, is cost, or actual wholesale price, or general market value, at the time of exportation in the principal markets of the country of exportation. This item is in the alternative; if the importer purchased the goods, then we commence with the cost; if the merchandise was not purchased, and is imported by the manufacturer or other person, we commence with the market value or wholesale price, not the retail price. The place to which we look is the principal markets of the country of exportation. In ascertaining what these markets are, the same rule prevails as in the case of appraised value, the word country is not used in a geographical but in a political sense. The time of exportation is the day on which the vessel sails, and ordinarily the date of the bill of lading may be regarded as that period. It is now provided by statute that, in ascertaining the market value to impose duties, the day of actual shipment shall be the period looked to. Whenever a bill of lading is presented, showing the date of shipment, this bill of lading must be certified by a United States consul or commercial agent. This statute does not provide for the case of a purchaser where the duty is imposed on cost, nor does it furnish a rule to guide the officers of customs when the bill of lading is not certified in the manner prescribed. In such cases the rule of Sampson v. Peaslee would prevail; the day of sailing would be the period of exportation, and the date in the bill of lading would furnish prima facie evidence of that period.

5

b. The second item is cost of transportation, shipment and transhipment, with all expenses included, from the place of growth or manufacture, whether by land or water, to the vessel in which shipment is

1 Gordon's Dig. Rev. Laws, p. 230; Act of 1823, §§ 4 and 5. 2R. S. U. S. § 2841. Discounts for cash are deducted from the invoice value, it is the cash value that is the basis of the tax. Goddard v. Arthur, 22 Int. Rev. Rec. 257. Sampson v. Peaslee, 20 How. 571.

3 Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall. 114.