Under Rev.Stat. § 2907, and the Act of June 22, 1874, c. 391, 18
Stat. 186, § 14, p. 189, as construed by the Treasury Department
for many years without any attempt to change it or until now, to
question its correctness,
Page 127 U. S. 608
goods imported into the United States from one country which, in
transportation to the port of shipment, pass through another
country are not subject to have the transportation charges in
passing through that other country added to their original cost in
order to determine their dutiable value.
When there has been a long acquiescence in a department
regulation, and by it rights of parties for many years have been
determined and adjusted, it is not to be disregarded without the
most cogent and persuasive reasons.
When, after duties have been liquidated, a reliquidation takes
place, the date of the reliquidation is the final liquidation for
the purpose of protest.
Letters from the Secretary of the Treasury to a collector of
customs affirming an assessment of duty and to an importer
acknowledging the receipt of his appeal from the collector's
assessment are admissible in evidence to show that an appeal was
taken.
The Treasury Department not having objected that an appeal was
too early, this Court must assume that there was good reason for
its action.
This was an action to recover duties alleged to have been
illegally assessed. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed. The
case is stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the Court
The plaintiffs below, the defendants in error here, in March,
1882, imported into the United States at the port of New York 5,179
packages of steel rods from Mulheim, in Germany. They were shipped
at the port of Antwerp, in Belgium, to which place they were
brought by rail from Mulheim, where they were made. Antwerp is
distant from the frontier of Germany between forty and fifty miles,
and from Mulheim two hundred miles. The appraisers added to the
invoice price of the articles at Mulheim eleven marks per ton to
make the dutiable value of the articles and seven marks per ton for
the charges incurred in their transportation to Antwerp. Upon their
appraised value, including these charges, the defendant, who was at
the time collector of the port of New York, on the 5th of May,
1882, ascertained and liquidated the duties. Subsequently, a
reliquidation was made, by which two and one-half
Page 127 U. S. 609
percent was deducted from the eleven marks. This reliquidation
was completed on the 24th of May, 1882. Two days afterwards, the
plaintiffs made a formal protest against including in the dutiable
value of the goods any sum for charges or otherwise in addition to
the value stated in the invoice, but adding that they should pay
the amount exacted in order to get the goods and then claim to have
it refunded.
On the trial, the plaintiffs put in evidence letters from the
Acting Secretary of the Treasury, against the objection of the
government, to show that an appeal was taken to the Secretary from
the decision of the collector and that it was affirmed. The counsel
of the government excepted to their admission. The following are
the letters:
"TREASURY DEPARTMENT"
"OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY"
"WASHINGTON, D.C. August 14, 1882"
"
Collector of Customs, New York"
"SIR: The department is in receipt of your letter of the 27th
ultimo, submitting the appeal (1,996, 2050 H) of Messrs. Downing,
Sheldon & Co., from your assessment of duty on additions made
by the appraiser to the invoice and entered value of certain steel
wire rods imported by them per Hermann, March 9, 1882."
"The appraiser reports that an addition was made by him for
charges under the Department's decision of July 20, 1880 (S.S. H
4617) for the reason that the invoice did not state that the price
of the merchandise was 'free on board,' and that an addition for
value was also made by him to make the usual market value of the
merchandise."
"Your assessment of duty thereon is hereby affirmed."
"Very respectfully,"
"H. F. FRENCH"
"
Acting Secretary"
Page 127 U. S. 610
"TREASURY DEPARTMENT"
"OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY"
"WASHINGTON, D.C. August 12, 1882"
"MESSRS. DOWNING, SHELDON & CO., care of Kausche &
Downing, p. O. box 3550, N.Y.:"
"Gentlemen: This department is in receipt of your appeal (No.
2050 H), dated May 25, 1882, from the decision of the collector of
the port of New York, assessing duty on certain merchandise,
imported per Hermann, March 9, 1882."
"In reply, you are informed that the case has been disposed of
by instructions this day addressed to the collector of customs at
the port mentioned, to whom you are referred for particulars."
"Respectfully,"
"H. F. FRENCH"
"
Acting Secretary"
The decision of the Secretary was made August 12, 1882. The
plaintiffs paid the amount of duties exacted, and in October
following brought the present action. The jury found in their favor
for $130.96. The court, by consent of parties, reduced this sum to
$47.64, and judgment for that amount, besides costs, was entered.
This reduction was made, as we infer from the record, so as to
cover only the increased duties exacted by reason of the addition
for charges on transportation to Antwerp.
The question of importance presented is whether, under the
statute charges for transportation of goods imported from one
country which on their passage may pass through another country,
should be added to the invoice value of the articles to make their
dutiable value under § 2907 of the Revised Statutes and § 14 of the
Act of June 22, 1874. Section 2907 provides that
"In determining the dutiable value of merchandise, there shall
be added to the cost, or to the actual wholesale price or general
market value at the time of exportation in the principal markets of
the country from whence the same has been imported into the United
States, the cost of transportation, shipment, and transhipment,
with all the expenses
Page 127 U. S. 611
included, from the place of growth, production, or manufacture,
whether by land or water, to the vessel in which shipment is made
to the United States; the value of the sack, box, or covering of
any kind in which such merchandise is contained; commission at the
usual rates, but in no case less than two and a half percentum, and
brokerage, export duty, and all other actual or usual charges for
putting up, preparing, and packing for transportation or
shipment."
Section 14 of the Act of June 22, 1874, 18 Stat. 189,
provides
"That wherever any statute requires that, to the cost or market
value of any goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United
States there shall be added to the invoice thereof, or, upon the
entry of such goods, wares, and merchandise, charges for inland
transportation, commissions, port duties, expenses of shipment,
export duties, cost of packages, boxes, or other articles
containing such goods, wares, and merchandise, or any other
incidental expenses attending the packing, shipping, or exportation
thereof from the country or place where purchased or manufactured,
the omission, without intent thereby to defraud the revenue, to add
and state the same on such invoice or entry shall not be cause of a
forfeiture of such goods, wares, and merchandise, or of the value
thereof; but in all cases where the same, or any part thereof, are
omitted, it shall be the duty of the collector or appraiser to add
the same, for the purposes of duty, to such invoice or entry,
either in items or in gross at such price or amount as he shall
deem just and reasonable (which price or amount shall, in the
absence of protest, be conclusive), and to impose and add thereto
the further sum of one hundred percentum of the price or amount so
added, which addition shall constitute a part of the dutiable value
of such goods, wares, and merchandise, and shall be collectible as
provided by law in respect to duties on imports."
In the execution of these statutes, the Treasury Department has
heretofore uniformly construed them to apply, so far as inland
transportation is concerned, only to such transportation where the
place of the growth, production, or manufacture of the article is
in the same country as the port from which
Page 127 U. S. 612
the vessel sails on which the shipment is made, and not where
such transportation is through other countries to reach a place of
shipment. Thus, in a decision rendered September 12, 1882, where
goods were forwarded from Brodenbach, in Austria, to Hamburg,
transshipped to Hull, and then placed on the import vessel, the
journey to the United States being continuous, the appellants
claimed that no charges accruing after the goods left Austria
should be added to make dutiable value, and the Treasury Department
sustained the claim, observing as follows:
"This claim seems to be well founded in view of the long
established practice in such cases, and of articles 434-444 of the
regulations of 1874, which provide in substance that in the case of
merchandise imported from an interior country through the ports of
another country, or from the country of its production,
manufacture, or procurement via another country, no charges shall
be added for transportation accruing after the departure of the
merchandise from the country of production if the collector shall
be satisfied that the merchandise was exported from such country
with a
bona fide intention of having it transported to the
United States."
A decision by the department made some years before also
illustrates the construction when the two places, that of
production and that of shipment, though separated from each other
by water, belong to the same country. The charges for railroad and
steamboat transportation of goods from Dundee, in Scotland, to
Liverpool, in England, were added to the invoice price to make the
dutiable value of the articles imported into this country. The
importers objected to these charges, and cited article 441 of the
regulations of 1874, referred to in the above decision, in support
of their claim; but the Treasury Department held that the
regulation was applicable only where the goods were transported to
some port of another country from the country of production for
shipment to the United States, by a practically continuous voyage,
and was not applicable to shipments from Scotland through England,
which are, to all intents and purposes, the same country.
This construction of the Treasury Department we think a
Page 127 U. S. 613
sound one. It places articles which are the growth, product, or
manufacture of countries whose ports of easy shipment are found in
other countries through which the goods must be carried, on a basis
of equality with the products of those countries which have
convenient ports of shipment. To preserve this equality, the
shippers are not obliged to confine their shipments to their own
ports when ports of other countries would be equally or more
convenient to them. This construction of the department has been
followed for many years without any attempt of Congress to change
it and without any attempt, as far as we are advised, of any other
department of the government to question its correctness except in
the present instance. The regulation of a department of the
government is not, of course, to control the construction of an act
of Congress when its meaning is plain. But when there has been a
long acquiescence in a regulation and by it rights of parties for
many years have been determined and adjusted, it is not to be
disregarded without the most cogent and persuasive reasons.
United States v. Hill, 120 U. S. 169,
120 U. S. 182;
United States v. Philbrick, 120 U. S.
52,
120 U. S. 59;
Brown v. United States, 113 U. S. 568,
113 U. S.
571.
The technical objections taken by the government counsel we do
not think tenable. The duties were not finally liquidated until the
24th of May, 1882. The time to protest did not begin to run until
then. The previous liquidation on the 5th of May was necessarily
abandoned by the corrections subsequently made. The letters of the
Acting Secretary were sufficient evidence of the appeal from the
decision of the collector. The question was not as to the contents
of the appeal, but whether any appeal was taken. The acknowledgment
of the acting Secretary, who decided the matter appealed, was
sufficient for that purpose, and also of the affirmance of the
decision of the collector. The bill of exceptions also states when
the decision of the Secretary was made. Of course, that presupposes
the receipt by him of the appeal. The date of "May 25th" in the
letter of August 12, 1882, was evidently a misprint for "May 27th."
But if it were not so, the Treasury Department not having seen fit
to place its decision upon the
Page 127 U. S. 614
ground that the appeal was too early, we must assume that there
was good reason for its action.
Judgment affirmed.