The plaintiffs below entered an importation of goods upon the
following invoice:
Bought . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Fr's 8,670.25
Discount for cash on gross amount,
two percent . . . . . . . . . . .8,766.60 . . . 175.30
--------
Fr's 8,494.95
Terms cash. If not paid, interest to be added at
the rate of six percent.
As cash had not been paid, the two percent discount was
disallowed by the appraisers. The collector thereupon fixed the
value of the goods as of the invoice price at 8,070.25 francs and
exacted duty thereon, although the actual market value of the goods
in the country of exportation was 8,404.95 francs.
Held
that the latter sum was also the invoice value, and that the duty
on the two percent was improperly exacted.
In 1874, Goddard & Brother imported certain goods, of which
the invoice, after giving the details of weight, &c., was as
follows,
viz.:
Bought . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . Fr's 8,670.25
Discount for cash on gross amount,
two percent . . . . . . . . . . .8,766.60 . . . 175.30
--------
Fr's 8,494.95
Terms cash. If not paid, interest to be added at
the rate of six percent.
The importers entered the goods at the net price stated in the
invoice -- francs, 8,494.95 -- and declared on the entry as
follows: "Cash not paid on these goods, but are passed to our
account, and are subject to interest at six percent per annum."
The case finds, as matter of fact, that 8,494.95 francs was the
actual market value of the goods at the time of their exportation,
in the principal market of the country from which they
Page 96 U. S. 146
were exported, and that the purchase by the importers was at the
figures named.
The appraisers disallowed the discount of two percent, on the
ground that the importers stated in the entry that the cash was not
paid. The collector thereupon fixed the value of the goods at
8,670.25 francs, and the duty charged upon that valuation having
been paid under protest, the importers brought suit to recover the
excess.
Judgment was rendered in their favor, and the collector brought
the case here.
MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appraisers seem to have acted under the provision of the
seventh section of the Act of March 3, 1865, 13 Stat. 494, which
declares "that the duty shall not be assessed upon any amount less
than the invoice or entered value."
The actual value has been stated at 8,494.95 francs, and such
was also the "invoice value." The entered or invoiced value spoken
of in the statute means the value as it is stated in or upon the
invoice. That value was, francs, 8,494.95. The value means the cash
value. The price at thirty days' credit might be different, and the
difference would probably be greatly increased by a credit of six
months or a year, but the value or cost would still be the same.
The difference would be chargeable to the credit, and not to a
difference in the value of the goods. That the price was to bear
interest at six percent until paid for, or at sixty percent, had no
influence upon the question of their value. We think it quite clear
that the net price is stated in this invoice to be the value of the
goods;
viz., francs, 8,494.95.
Ballard v.
Thomas, 19 How. 382, is cited as an authority to
the contrary. We do not so consider it. The judge at the trial of
that case charged the jury as follows:
"It being admitted that the duties were levied on the prices at
which the iron was charged in the invoice, they are lawfully
exacted; . . . that the entry in the invoice, that the plaintiff
would be entitled
Page 96 U. S. 147
to a deduction for prompt payment, could not affect the amount
of duty chargeable."
In delivering the opinion of affirmance in this Court, Mr.
Justice Nelson said:
"In respect to the deduction from the price on account of prompt
payment, we think the fact does not vary or affect the price of the
article as stated in the invoice. It relates simply to the mode of
payment, which may, if observed, operate as a satisfaction of the
price to be paid, by the acceptance of a less sum."
This is quite different from a case where the court is asked to
fix the duties upon a different value from that stated in the
invoice.
It is said, again, that the valuation of the appraisers is
conclusive.
The statute already cited provides that it shall be the duty of
the collector to cause the actual market value or wholesale price
of the goods in the principal market of the county from which they
are exported to be appraised, "and such appraised value shall be
considered the value upon which the duty shall be assessed." 13
Stat. 493.
In this case, the appraisers did not profess to appraise or
ascertain the market value of the goods. They simply gave a
construction to the invoice; they decided its legal effect to be
that 8,670.25 francs is there declared to be the market value of
the goods. They held as a legal proposition that, in fixing the
value, the discount of two percent should not be allowed, and, as a
result from this, that 8,670.25 francs, and not 8,494.95 francs,
was the value.
Such is the effect of their return, and the view is
strengthened, if strength is needed, by the statement of the case,
that 8,494.95 francs was, in fact, the market value of the
goods.
Judgment affirmed.
