Joseph Barlow v. United States
Decision Date | 01 January 1833 |
Citation | 32 U.S. 404,7 Pet. 404,8 L.Ed. 728 |
Parties | JOSEPH BARLOW, Claimant of eighty-five Hogsheads of Sugar, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York. In the district court of the United States for the southern district of New York, a libel was filed by the United States, for the forfeiture of eighty-five hogsheads of sugar, alleging them to have been entered for the benefit of drawback, under a false denomination; viz., as refined sugars, with intent to defraud the revenue. The answer of the claimant, Joseph Barlow, denied that the sugars were entered by a false denomination, or with intent to defraud the revenue; and insisted, they were refined sugars, within the meaning of the act of congress. Testimony was taken in the district court, by the parties to the proceedings, and that court decreed as follows:
From this decree, both parties appealed to the circuit court for the southern district of New York. On the 4th January 1831, the circuit court made the following decree:
The claimant appealed to this court.
The case was argued by Morton and Ogden, for the appellant; and by Taney, Attorney-General, for the United States.
This is a libel of seizure, instituted in the district court for the southern district of New York, which comes before this court upon an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of that district, condemning the property, viz., eighty-five hogsheads of sugar, as forfeited to the United States. The charge in the libel is, that the sugars were entered in the office of the collector of the customs for the district of New York, for the benefit of drawback or bounty upon the exportation thereof, by a false denomination, with an intent to defraud the revenue. The claimant in his claim admits that he made the entry for the benefit of the drawback on the exportation; but he denies, that the entry was made by a false denomination; and he asserts, that the sugars are truly refined sugars, as they are denominated in the entry.
The 84th section of the duty collection act of 1799, ch. 128, upon which the libel is founded, provides, that if any goods, wares or merchandise, of which entry shall have been made in the office of a collector, for the benefit of drawback or bounty upon exportation, shall be entered by a false denomination, or erroneously as to the time when, and the vessel in which, they were imported, or shall be found to disagree with the packages, quantities or qualities, as they were at the time of the original importation, &c., all such goods, wares and merchandise, &c., shall be forfeited; provided, that the said forfeiture shall not be incurred, if it shall be made appear to the satisfaction of the collector, &c., or of the court in which a prosecution for the forfeiture shall be had, that such false denomination, error or disagreement happened by mistake or accident, and not from any intention to defraud the revenue.
The language of this section is certainly sufficient to include the case at bar, if all the material facts are established. The sugars were entered for the benefit of drawback or bounty, in the office of the collector; and if the entry was by a false denomination, the forfeiture is incurred; unless the claimant can avail himself of the proviso, or some other matter in defence.
It has, however, been contended at the bar, that in the case of refined sugars, exported for the benefit of drawback and bounty, no entry is required by law to be made at the office of the collector; but that a system of regulations has been specially provided for such exportations, which supersedes or controls those of the 84th section. And in support of this argument, it has been urged, that the 84th section applies only to articles which have been previously imported and subjected to duties.
It appears to us, upon full consideration, that this argument is not well founded. Sugars have been made subject to duties upon their importation, from the first establishment of the government down to the present time, in every tariff law; and it is notorious, that until after the acquisition of Louisiana, in 1803, no sugars were grown in the United States; and consequently, all that were used or refined within the United States must have been of foreign...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Lindberg
... ... Accord United States v. Blagojevich , 794 F.3d 729, 739 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Barlow v. United States , 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 404, 8 L.Ed. 728 (1833) ); 476 F.Supp.3d 276 United States v. Wynn , 684 F.3d 473, 478 (4th Cir. 2012) ... ...
-
U.S. v. Wilson
... ... L. Rep. 20,299, ... 48 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 384 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, ... James J. WILSON, ... 192, 199, 111 S.Ct. 604, 609, 112 L.Ed.2d 617 (1991); Barlow v. United States, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 404, 411, 8 L.Ed. 728 (1833) (Story, ... ...
-
United States v. Moreira-Bravo
... ... " United States v. Hutzell , 217 F.3d 966, 968 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting Barlow v. United States , 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 404, 411, 8 L.Ed. 728 (1833) ) (reaffirming that a statute imposing penalties on those who "knowingly violate" ... ...
-
U.S. v. D'Armond
... 65 F.Supp.2d 1189 ... UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, ... Ray Lee D'ARMOND, Brian Keith Lindberg, ... See also Barlow v. United States, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 404, 411, 8 L.Ed. 728 (1833) (Story, ... ...