United States v. Klingenberg

• Decision Date: 23 April 1894
• Docket Number: No. 1,066,1,066
• Citation: 153 U.S. 93,38 L.Ed. 647,14 S.Ct. 790
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. KLINGENBERG
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

153 U.S. 93

14 S.Ct. 790

38 L.Ed. 647

UNITED STATES

v KLINGENBERG.

No. 1,066.

April 23, 1894.

Sol. Gen. Maxwell, for the United States.

W. Wickham Smith, for appellee.

Mr. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of the court.

The qestion presented for our consideration by the record in this case is whether the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York has jurisdiction to review the decision of the board of general appraisers reversing the action of the collector of the port of New York in estimating the value and converting paper florins into the currency of the United States on importations of merchandise, the invoices of which were expressed in paper florins of Austria-Hungary, from which country the importations were made.

The appellee, in July, 1892, imported certain merchandise, consisting of china and glass ware, from Austria-Hungary, which was entered for consumption at the port of New York on July 23, 1892. The invoices of this merchandise were made out in (paper) florins of Austria-Hungary, in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of the customs administrative act of June 10, 1980 (26 Stat. 131), which requires that 'all invoices of imported merchandise shall be made out in the currency of the place or country from whence the importations shall be made.' No consular certificate giving the value of the paper florin accompanied the invoices, or was produced by the importer. In reducing the currency of the invoices into money of account of the United States, the collector of the port estimated the florin at $0.482, which was the value of the gold florin, as proclaimed by the treasury department July 1, 1892. The importer duly protested against this action of the collector, because the invoices accompanying the merchandise were not expressed in gold florins, and because, in estimating the value of the Austrian florin, the collector should have adopted the silver florin as the standard value, as last proclaimed by the secretary of the treasury, which was $0.32; that the collector's adoption of the value of the gold florin as the standard necessarily increased the amount of duties to be paid on the importations.

The protest of the importer, having been made in due time and form, was transmitted by the collector to the board of general appraisers at the port of New York, who, after hearing testimony, decided that the collector should have estimated the florins of the invoices at $0.32, instead of at $0.482, and directed the reliquidation of the entry of the goods on that basis.

Thereupon, the collector, on behalf of the United States, made application to the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York for a review of this decision of the board of general appraisers. The petition set out the facts already stated, and claimed that the board of general appraisers was in error in holding that the reduction of the currency of the invoice into money of account of the United States should have been $0.32 to the florin, for the reason that by the estimate of the director of the mint, and the proclamation of the secretary of the treasury, made July 1, 1892, in conformity with section 52 of the tariff act of Octo- ber 1, 1890 (26 Stat. 567), it appeared that silver was 'the nominal standard; paper, the actual standard, the depreciation of which is measured by the gold standard,' which, under the proclamation, was fixed at $0.482; that, under the values fixed by this proclamation, the board erred in reversing the decision of the collector, and in sustaining the protest of the importer in the premises.

The importer moved to dismiss the application of the collector on the ground that the decision of the board of general appraisers, complained of, could not be reviewed by the circuit, court, under section 15 of the customs administrative act, because that decision related neither to the classification of the merchandise, nor to the rate of duty thereon. The circuit court, being of opinion that it had no jurisdiction to enter upon, hear, and decide the questions presented by the collector's petition, granted the motion, and dismissed the application. 57 Fed. 195. The United States being dissatisfied with this ruling, the circuit court, under the provisions of section 5 of the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 827), certified the question of its jurisdiction in the premises to this court.

It is insisted on behalf of the United States that the collector's decision as to the value of the florin, under the provisions of law and the proclamation of values made by the secretary of the treasury on July 1, 1892, was conclusive, and not subject to review by the board of general appraisers. This position is rested upon the rule laid down in the cases of Collector v. Richards, 23, Wall. 259; Cramer v. Arthur, 102 U. S. 612; and Hadden v. Merritt, 115 U. S. 25, 27, 5 Sup. Ct. 1169.

By section 1 of the act of March 3, 1873 (17 Stat. 602), it was provided 'that the value of foreign coin, as expressed in the money of account of the United States, shall be that of the pure metal of such coin of standard value, and the values of the standard coins in circulation of the various nations of the world shall be estimated annually by the director of the mint, and proclaimed on the first day of January by the secretary of the treasury.' In pursuance of that act the director of the mint having estimated the value of the franc of France at 19 cents and 3 mills, and the secretary of the treas- ury having on January 1, 1874, proclaimed it, the question arose in the case of Collector v. Richards, 23 Wall. 259, whether goods invoiced in French francs, and entered in a customhouse here in March, 1873, were to be charged at this new valuation of the franc. It was said by Mr. Justice Bradley, who delivered the opinion of the court in that case, that 'it seems to us * * * that the statute adopts the true method of computing the value of foreign money. The basis of our dollar of account * * * is the standard gold dollar, of 25.8 grains, containing one-tenth alloy. The actual coinage in circulation may be diminished in value by abrasion, and this may have some effect on the dollar of account. But the same thing is true is other countries, as the assays at the mint have shown; and the true method of comparing their money of account with ours, when both are based on actual coin, is to compare the standard coins of the two countries in a perfect state, and to ascertain the actual amount of pure metal in each. This is the result as which congress seems to have arrived, and, as we think, wisely. In making the comparison of the moneys of different countries, their gold coins, if they have such, are employed for the purpose; gold having become the general medium of international exchange, whilst silver is regarded more as a domestic coin, and is usually made a legal tender for only limited amounts. This practice, together with the rejection of the alloy from the estimate, is in accordance with the rules laid down on the subject by the most enlightened economists.'

This first section of the act of March 3, 1873, was carried into section 3564 of the Revised Statutes, and again came under consideration in Cramer v. Arthur, 102 U. S. 612, in connection with section 2903, Rev. St., providing for the case of invoices made out in a depreciated currency issued and circulated under authority of any foreign government, and pursuant to which section regulations were established declaring that, where the standard value of a foreign currency has been proclaimed by the secretary of the treasury in the manner provided by law, such value shall control in estimating custom duties, unless collectors have been in- structed otherwise, or unless a depreciation of the value of that currency, 'expressed in an invoice from the standard of that currency, shall be shown by consular certificate thereto attached.' There was a consular certificate in that case certifying the value of the Austrian florin, and the plaintiff sought to go behind the valuation estimated by the director of the mint, and proclaimed by the secretary of the treasury; but this was not permitted, for the reason that the value of the Austrian florin, as ascertained and fixed by the director of the mint and the proclamation of the secretary of the treasury, was as conclusive as though fixed by the statute itself, and all parties interested were conclusively bound thereby. Mr. Justice Bradley, speaking for the court, said: 'The proclamation of the secretary and the certificate of the consul must be regarded as conclusive. In the estimation of the value of foreign moneys for the purpose of assessing duties, there must be an end to controversy somewhere. When congress fixes the value by general statute, parties must abide by that. When it fixes it through the agency of official instrumentalities devised for the purpose of making a near approximation to the actual state of things, they must abide by the values so ascertained. If the currency is a standard one, based on coin, the secretary's proclamation fixes it. If it is a depreciated currency, the parties may have the benefit of a consular certificate. To go behind these, and allow an examination by affidavits in every case, would put the assessment of duties at sea. It would create utter confusion and uncertainty.'

In the subsequent case of Hadden v. Merritt, 115 U. S. 25, 5 Sup. Ct. 1169, construing sections 2838 and 3564, the former requiring all invoices of merchandise subject to a duty ad valorem to be made out in the currency of the place or country from whence the importation shall be made, and that they shall contain a true statement of the actual cost of such merchandise in such foreign currency or currencies, without any respect to the value of the coins of the United States, or of foreign coins by law made current within the United States, in such foreign place or country, section...