Passavant v. United States
| Decision Date | 20 March 1893 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,118,1,118 |
| Citation | 148 U.S. 214,13 S.Ct. 572,37 L.Ed. 426 |
| Parties | PASSAVANT et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Edwin B. Smith, for appellants.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Parker, for the United States.
The principal question presented by the record in this case is whether, under the customs administrative act of June 10, 1890, (26 St. at Large, p. 131,) the circuit courts of the United States have any jurisdiction to entertain an appeal by importers from a decision of the board of general appraisers as to the dutiable value of imported merchandise; in other words, whether the circuit courts of the United States have, under the provisions of said act, any authority or jurisdiction, on the application of dissatisfied importers, to review and reverse a decision of a board of general appraisers, ascertaining and fixing the dutiable value of imported goods, when such board has acted in pursuance of law, and without fraud, or other misconduct, from which bad faith could be implied.
The material facts of the case on which this question arises are the following: In November, 1890, and July, 1891, the appellants, Passavant & Co., imported into New York from France gloves of different classes or grades, which were entered by the importers at certain valuations. The collector of the port of New York, under the authority conferred by section 10 of said administrative act, caused the imported goods to be appraised, and upon such appraisal their value was advanced or increased by the appraiser to an amount exceeding by more than 10 per cent. the value thereof as declared by the importers upon entry. The importers being dissatisfied with this advanced valuation, a reappraisement was made by one of the general appraisers, and on further objection by the importers to this valuation, the matter was sent to the board of general appraisers, under and in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the customs administrative act. This board, after due notice and examination of the question submitted, sustained the increased valuation of the merchandise. Thereupon the collector of the port levied and assessed upon the imported goods a duty of 50 per cent. ad valorem, that being the rate of duty on the gloves under paragraph 458 of the tariff act of October 1, 1890; and, in addition thereto, a further sum equal to 2 per cent. of the total appraised value for each 1 per cent. that such appraised value exceeded the value declared in the entry, under and by virtue of section 7 of said act of June 10, 1890, which provides and directs that 'if the appraised value of any article of imported merchandise shall exceed by more than ten per centum the value declared in the entry, there shall be levied, collected, and paid, in addition to the duties imposed by law on such merchandise, a further sum equal to two per centum of the total appraised value for each one per centum that such appraised value exceeds the value declared in the entry; and the additional duties shall only apply to the particular article or articles in each invoice which are undervalued.'
The importers duly served upon the collector a protest against his appraisement of duty for any and all excess above 50 per cent. ad valorem, and upon any greater value than the declared or entered value, for the alleged reasons that no legal reappraisement had been made; that the board of appraisers had declined to receive or entertain evidence offered by them as to the true market value of the merchandise; that the board had determined matters upon estimates or values furnished by agents of the treasury; that evidence of persons who were not experts, and had no personal knowledge of the value of gloves in the markets of France, had been taken and acted on; that the importers were given no opportunity to controvert evidence against them; that the original invoice was correct; that the duties should not be assessed upon any greater amount, and that the action of the board was in all respects illegal. The collector duly transmitted this protest, with the papers in the case, to the board of general appraisers, who adhered to the increased valuation, affirmed the action of the collector, and held that the decision of the board as to such valuation was final and conclusive under section 13 of said act of June 10, 1890, and could not be impeached or reviewed upon protest. Thereupon, and within due time, the importers filed their application in the United States circuit court for the southern district of New York for a review of the case, and a reversal of the decision of the board of appraisers and the action of the collector in assessing the duties on the basis of the increased valuation placed upon the imported merchandise, and in imposing the additional duty as provided by section 7, above referred to.
The petitioners, in their application, set forth and complained of many alleged errors of law and fact on the part of the board of general appraisers, which need not be specially noticed, as they were manifestly not well founded, and have been abandoned. The board of general appraisers, in pursuance of the usual order in such cases, returned to the circuit court the record and evidence taken by them, together with a certified statement of the facts involved in the case, and their decision thereon, etc. From this return it appeared that the proceedings as to the appraisement of the merchandise and the determination of their dutiable value were in all respects regular; that the board of appraisers duly examined and decided the case after fixing a day and giving reasonable notice thereof to the importers, who were allowed the opportunity to introduce evidence, and to be heard on the matter submitted. It is stated in the opinion of the board, which forms part of said return, that
Upon the record as thus presented the assistant United States attorney moved the court to dismiss the application or appeal for want of jurisdiction to entertain the same. This motion was sustained, and the circuit court thereupon certified to this court, under the fifth section of the act of March 3, 1891, (26 St. at Large, p. 827,) the question whether said court had any jurisdiction to enter upon, hear, and decide the issues sought to be raised by the allegations of the petition, which are specially set out in the certificate, but need not be here enumerated, as they are embraced in the two general claims or propositions, hereinafter stated, which are relied on by appellants before this court.
In addition to the certification of the question of jurisdiction, the circuit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. General Motors Corporation
...S.Ct. 671, 53 L.Ed. 1013 (1909); Hepner v. United States, 213 U.S. 103, 29 S.Ct. 474, 53 L.Ed. 720 (1909); Passavant v. United States, 148 U.S. 214, 13 S.Ct. 572, 37 L.Ed. 426 (1893); Olshausen v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 273 F.2d 23, 27 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 820,......
-
Washington Gas Light v. Public Service, No. 08-AA-148.
...it did so expressly. Thus, we note that two cases on which the Commission relies, Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan102 and Passavant v. United States,103 each concerns a statute that explicitly conferred on an agency the adjudicatory power to fine. In Stranahan, the Supreme Court up......
-
St Joseph Stock Yards Co v. United States
...110 U.S. 97, 107, 3 S.Ct. 548, 28 L.Ed. 83. 'It was certainly competent for congress,' said the Court in Passavant v. United States, 148 U.S. 214, 219, 13 S.Ct. 572, 575, 37 L.Ed. 426, 'to create this board of general appraisers, called 'legislative referees' in an early case in this court ......
-
Helvering v. Mitchell
...that they are essentially criminal and subject to the procedural rules governing criminal prosecutions. Passavant v. United States, 148 U.S. 214, 13 S.Ct. 572, 37 L.Ed. 426; United States v. Zucker, 161 U.S. 475, 16 S.Ct. 641, 40 L.Ed. 777; Hepner v. United States, 213 U.S. 103, 29 S.Ct. 47......