Robertson v. Downing
| Decision Date | 14 May 1888 |
| Citation | 8 S.Ct. 1328,32 L.Ed. 269,127 U.S. 607 |
| Parties | ROBERTSON v. DOWNING et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Sol. Gen. Jenks, for plaintiff in error.
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 40 and 50 miles, and from Mulheim 200 miles. The appraisers added to the invoice price of the articles at Mulheim 11 marks per ton to make the dutiable value of the articles, and 7 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 2 1/2 per cent. was deducted from the 11 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:
Collector of Customs, New York—SIR: The department is in receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo, submitting the appeal 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 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 inter 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 section 2907 of the Revised Statutes, and section 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 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frank Fairbank v. United States
...Sup. Ct. Rep. 413; United States v. Hill, 120 U. S. 169, 182, 30 L. ed. 627, 632, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 510; Robertson v. Downing, 127 U. S. 607, 613, 32 L. ed. 269, 271, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1328; and Schell v. Fauche, 138 U. S. 562, 572, 34 L. ed. 1040, 1043, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 376, 380, in which it w......
-
Wilmington Trust Co. v. Mutual Life Ins. Co.
...Loan & Trust Co., 316 U.S. 209, 62 S.Ct. 1026, 86 L.Ed. 1387; United States v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 24 L.Ed. 588; Robertson v. Downing, 127 U.S. 607, 8 S. Ct. 1328, 32 L.Ed. 269; United States v. Jackson, 280 U.S. 183, 193, 50 S.Ct. 143, 74 L.Ed. 361; United States v. Madigan, 300 U.S. 500, ......
-
United States v. Mescalero Apache Tribe
...with its administration. United States v. Cerecedo Hermanos y Compania, 209 U.S. 337, 28 S.Ct. 532, 52 L.Ed. 821; Robertson v. Downing, 127 U.S. 607, 8 S.Ct. 1328, 32 L.Ed. 269; United States v. Healey, 160 U.S. 136, 16 S.Ct. 247, 40 L.Ed. 369, and such construction is not to be overturned ......
-
State ex rel. Braatelien v. Drakeley
... ... Philbrick, 120 U.S. 52, 30 L.Ed ... 559, 7 S.Ct. 413; United States v. Johnston, 124 ... U.S. 236, 31 L.Ed. 389, 8 S.Ct. 446; Robertson v ... Downing, 127 U.S. 607, 32 L.Ed. 269, 8 S.Ct. 1328; ... Schell v. Fauche, 138 U.S. 562, 34 L.Ed. 1040, 11 ... S.Ct. 376; Pennoyer v ... ...
-
The judicial perspective in the administrative state: reconciling modern doctrines of deference with the judiciary's structural role.
...conduct, particularly administrative denial of government benefits, was another matter." Id. (262.) Id. (citing Robertson v. Downing, 127 U.S. 607, 613 (1888) ("[The] construction of the department has been followed for many years...."); see also Smythe v. Fiske, 90 U.S. (23 Wall.) 374, 382......
-
The judicial perspective in the administrative state: reconciling modern doctrines of deference with the judiciary's structural role.
...conduct, particularly administrative denial of government benefits, was another matter." Id. (262.) Id. (citing Robertson v. Downing, 127 U.S. 607, 613 (1888) ("[The] construction of the department has been followed for many years...."); see also Smythe v. Fiske, 90 U.S. (23 Wall.) 374, 382......