United States v. 1,621 Pounds of Fur Clippings

• Decision Date: 06 December 1900
• Docket Number: 5.
• Citation: 106 F. 161
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. 1,621 POUNDS OF FUR CLIPPINGS (GERRINGER, Claimant).
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

106 F. 161

UNITED STATES v. 1,621 POUNDS OF FUR CLIPPINGS (GERRINGER, Claimant).

No. 5.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

December 6, 1900

Chas H. Brown, U.S. Atty.

Henry Gosslieb, for defendant in error.

Before WALLACE, LACOMBE, and SHIPMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

At the May term of the United States district court for the Northern district of New York, in an action brought by the government for the condemnation of certain merchandise which had been seized by the collector of customs as forfeited to the United States because of a fraudulent undervaluation when entered for importation, the court dismissed the information, and ordered the merchandise released by the collector of customs upon the payment by the claimant of the duties upon the merchandise at its appraised value, 'together with the penal duties provided by section 7 of the customs administrative act of July 24, 1897. ' At the September term next following a motion was made on behalf of the claimant to vacate the judgment entered at the previous term and thereupon the court entered another judgment in the action vacating the judgment entered at the earlier term dismissing the information, and ordering the merchandise to be released by the collector of customs upon the payment of the customs duties upon the appraised value of the merchandise without the penal duty. This writ of error assails the latter judgment.

It appears by the bill of exceptions that the merchandise in question was entered in August, 1898, for the claimant by one Fitchelberg; that the claimant instructed Fitchelberg to make entry at its full value; that Fitchelberg caused the merchandise to be entered as of the value of $140; that the dutiable value was $905, and it should have entered at that value; and that the claimant was not a party to the fraudulent undervaluation, and had no knowledge thereof. The question whether the claimant was guilty of fraudulent undervaluation was submitted to the jury, and the jury rendered a verdict in his favor upon that issue. Under the statute of July 24, 1897 (30 Stat. 211, Sec. 32), amending section 7 of the act of June 10, 1890, entitled 'An act to simplify the laws in relation to the collection of the revenues,' when the appraised value of imported merchandise subject to duty exceeds the value declared in the entry, additional duties shall be levied, collected, and paid of 1 per centum on the total...