Libel for a forfeiture of goods imported, and alleged to have
been invoiced at a less sum than the actual cost at the place of
exportation, with design to evade the duties, contrary to the
sixty-sixth section of the collection law, ch. 128. Restitution
decreed upon the evidence as to the cost of the goods at the place
where they were last shipped, the form of the libel excluding all
inquiry as to their cost at the place where they were originally
shipped and as to continuity of voyage.
Page 16 U. S. 233
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the
Court.
In this case the libel alleges that the goods in question were
exported from Bordeaux in France, and entered at the office of the
collector of the customs at New Orleans, and that they were
invoiced at a less sum than the actual cost thereof at the place of
exportation with design to evade the duties thereon, contrary to
the provisions of the 66th section of the Collection Law of 1799,
ch. 128. It appears in the case that the goods were originally
shipped from Liverpool and were landed at Bordeaux. All question as
to continuity of voyage and as to whether Liverpool or Bordeaux
ought to be deemed the place of exportation is out of the case,
because the information charges the goods to have been exported
from Bordeaux. Upon the evidence, it appears that the goods were
invoiced at sixty or seventy percent below the price in New
Orleans, which it is supposed was at least as high as the price
would have been in Liverpool. But it also appears that goods of
this kind, at the time of their exportation from Bordeaux, were
depreciated in value to an equal degree. And it is proved that the
same goods were offered to a witness at 50 percent below their cost
at Liverpool. The Court is therefore not satisfied that the goods
were invoiced below their true value at Bordeaux with a design to
evade the lawful
Page 16 U. S. 234
duties, and the inquiry as to their value in the port from which
they were originally shipped is excluded by the form in which the
libel is drawn. The decree of the district court restoring the
goods to the claimant is therefore affirmed.
Decree affirmed.