Consigned Goods-Addition on Entry.-Invoice value of consigned goods can not be advanced on entry.-T. D. 13062 (G. A. 1567).

Importers made entry of "olive oil, 880 francs, and bottles, 30 francs." Value of bottles increased to 94 francs and additional duty assessed. Held, that there is no evidence that there was a manifest clerical error in invoicing the bottles.-T. D. 12226 (G. A. 1040).

The inclusion of nondutiable items (commissions) on consigned goods would be an addition to entered value and such additions can not be made.

The collector deducted the commissions on consigned goods which increased the additional duty under section 7. The protest claims that this commission was manufacturers' profit and should not have been deducted. Protest overruled.-T. D. 12461 (G. A. 1199).

Immediate-Transportation Entry is Not the Entry of Merchandise.— Held, that an entry for immediate transportation to an interior port and a pro forma invoice for that purpose is not the entry nor pro forma invoice contemplated by section 7, act of June 10, 1890.-T. D. 12106 (G. A. 968).

Additional Duty on Part of an Invoice of Silk Handkerchiefs.-Held, that in this case handkerchiefs of a special number, size, and weight, invoiced in one item distinct from others, were undervalued and the penal duty attached to the particular articles embraced in the item.-T. D. 11999 (G. A. 912).

Duress-St. Gall Embroideries.-The importer added 10 per cent to the cost price of St. Gall embroideries and made this statement in the invoice: "Added under protest 10 per cent, as required by the Treasury Department." He then claimed that this amount was added under duress. Held, that duty could not be assessed upon an amount less than that stated in the invoice.-T. D. 10763 (G. A. 316); T. D. 11887 (G. A. 878).

Exact Per Centum of Advance Determines Whether Additional Duty Applies. An advance of a fraction more than 10 per cent is an advance of more than 10 per cent.-T. D. 11841 (G. A. 832).

Additional Duty-Date of Consular Invoice.-The date of consular invoice does not affect the imposition of additional duty. (Invoice dated prior to Aug. 1, 1890.)—T. D. 10550 (G. A. 200).

Additional Duty-Pro Forma Invoices.-The additional duty attaches on pro forma invoices.-T. D. 10548 (G. A. 198).

Additional Duty-Advice of American Consul.-Protest that the additional duty (fixed by the appraiser and on reappraisement by a general appraiser and by the Board of General Appraisers) is “unjust, as the invoice presented by me was made by the manufacturers of said lime, under instructions of the American consul, and presented the true value and charges on said lime," overruled. If the invoice was made out at the true value of the merchandise, under instructions from the consul, there could be apparently no ground for complaint of duress on the part of the Government officers. The importer exhausted his remedies in appealing to the tribunal of last resort against the valuation and the additional duty exacted in accordance with law must stand.-T. D. 10547 (G. A. 197).

Additions to Invoice Value Can Not be Made After Entry.-Goods entered without additions to invoice. By the next mail the importer received a letter from the shipper stating that the books entered at 21d. should have invoiced at 2s. The importer communicated this information to the appraiser who made the addition to the invoice, which raised the value more than 10 per cent, and the penalty was imposed. Held, that additions to invoice value can not be made by the importer after entry.-T. D. 10532 (G. A. 182).

Clerical Error in Invoice.-An error admitting of rectification must be manifest upon the face of the papers.-T. D. 10238 (G. A. 16).

Merchandise Paying a Specific Duty.-When the question whether goods are to pay a specific or an ad valorem duty depends on whether they exceed a certain value (as in the case of gloves under paragraph 458, act of 1890), an appraisement is essential, and if the appraisement discloses that the goods have been undervalued more than 10 per cent they are subject to the penalty of an increased duty, although the excess of over 10 per cent on the invoiced value is not sufficient to require an ad valorem instead of a specific duty. T. D. 13780 (G. A. 1974) reversed.-Pings v. U. S. (C. C. A.), 72 Fed. Rep., 260.

Additional duties are incurred under this section where goods paying a specific rate of duty varying with their value are appraised at a value in excess of that at which they are entered, notwithstanding that the advance made on appraisement did not result in altering their dutiable classification so as to subject them to any higher rate than that at which they were entered.-U. S. v. Nuckolls, 118 Fed. Rep., 1004.

Additional Duties Are Penal. The provision in this section imposing additional duties when the appraised value exceeds the entered value is penal in its nature, and the additional duties are a penalty. The district court has exclusive jurisdiction of a suit brought by the United States to recover such additional duties, and the circuit court has no jurisdiction of such suit.-Helwig v. U. S., 188 U. S., 605.

Addition Noted on Invoice, Omitted from Entry.-An addition made by the importer to the invoice value, though marked upon the invoice itself, becomes a part of the entered value, and the collector can not ignore such addition and then assess a penal duty which would not otherwise have accrued.U. S. v. Merck & Co. (C. C.), 91 Fed. Rep., 641.

Undervaluation-Forfeiture. The additional duties are payable, except in cases of clerical error, irrespective of any question of fraudulent undervaluation on the part of the importer, but the merchandise is not forfeited except in cases of fraudulent undervaluation.-U. S. v. 1,621 Pounds of Fur Clippings (C. C. A.), 106 Fed. Rep., 161.

Charges Added by United States Consul.-The unauthorized act of a United States consul in adding to the invoice value of goods the amount of ocean freights is not conclusive upon the importer, and he is entitled to have the valuation corrected even though the appraiser has, in a pro forma manner, approved the invoice by marking it "correct."-U. S. v. Zuricaldy (C. C.), 71 Fed. Rep., 955.

Forfeiture All Duties Accrue.-When goods are found to be undervalued over 50 per cent the institution and prosecution of proceedings for forfeiture do not relieve the importer from liability for the additional duty of 1 per cent of the total appraised value for each 1 per cent that the appraised value exceeds the entered value.-Gray v. U. S., 113 Fed. Rep., 213.

Appraised value exceeded invoice value by more than 50 per cent. Held, that the fact that a case is within the terms of the proviso to this section or that the Government has proceeded thereunder for the forfeiture of the goods does not relieve the importer from liability for the additional duty imposed by the previous portion of the section.-U. S. v. Gray; Same v. Sherman; Same v. Baldwin (C. C.), 107 Fed. Rep., 104.

Intentional Omission from Entry.-One who is assessed with a penalty for entering dutiable goods at a sum below their actual value can not, in an action for the penalty, defend on the ground that he intentionally omitted cer

tain items from the entry in order to pay them separately under protest. He must either give notice and ask for a reappraisement or take an appeal as provided by law.-U. S. v. Strauss (C. C.), 55 Fed. Rep., 388.

Sugar Invoiced at a Price Based on Polariscopic Test.-An importation of sugar was invoiced as "basis 81 degrees with a memorandum attached stating "purchased at 13 cents per Sp. lb. net, basis 81 degrees, average, 1.32 cents per pound to be added for each degree above 81 degrees test, or 1.16 cents per pound to be deducted for each degree below 80 degrees test; fractional of a degree pro rata." This meant that the price was to vary according to the quality as shown by the polariscopic test. Upon appraisal the value of the sugar was found to be more than 10 per cent above the price of 13 cents per pound, but much less than that above the price as fixed by the test according to the memorandum. Held, that this was not an undervaluation of more than 10 per cent, which would justify the imposition of the additional duty.-U. S. v. American Sugar Refining Co. (C. C.), 71 Fed. Rep., 951.

Disallowing Commission to Make Market Value.—In appraising certain dress goods, the appraiser made an addition to the entered value of the invoice by disallowing a commission of 2.5 per cent claimed as a discount for cash. This was done, as the appraiser said, "to make market value," the discount being considered as excessive. The importer protested. Held, that it must be assumed that the discount was not arbitrarily rejected, but that the same was taken as the measure of the advance, which the appraiser deemed it his duty to make in ascertaining market value, and that, therefore, the remedy of the importer was not by protest but by an appeal for reappraisement.-Wanamaker v. Cooper (C. C.), 69 Fed. Rep., 329.

DECISIONS UNDER EARLIER STATUTES PERTAINING TO SAME SUBJECT MATTER.

Additions by Importer.-Under this section an importer has a right to make in his entry an addition to the value as contained in his invoice; but the additional duty attaches, if the appraised value exceeds by 10 per cent the value in the entry, whether such addition has been made by the importer or not.Schmaire v. Maxwell, 3 Blatch., 408; 21 Fed. Cas., 700.

Addition to Invoice Value.-On entry of merchandise actually purchased or procured otherwise than by purchase, the owner, consignee, or agent may make such addition in the entry to the cost or value given in the invoice as may, in his opinion, raise the same to the true market value of such imports in the principal markets of the country whence the importation is made and may add thereto all costs and charges which would form a part of the true value at the port where the same was entered. No duties can, however, be assessed upon an amount less than the entered or invoice value. Harding v. Whitney, 4 Cliff., 96; 11 Int. Rev. Rec., 103; 11 Fed. Cas., 496.

Additional Duty.-The penalty for undervaluation attaches whether the importer makes the addition to his invoice or not.-Lehmaier v. Maxwell (N. Y. Times, Jan. 28, 1856), 15 Fed. Cas., 250.

The additional duty is chargeable alike whether the importer avails himself of the privilege given by this section and adds to his invoice or whether an appraisal is made upon the invoice as originally made.—Goddard v. Maxwell, 3 Blatch., 131; 10 Fed. Cas., 510.

Appraised Value.-On an importation of woolen goods from Paris the appraisers took as a guide to their valuation the market price at the period of exportation, and on their report the value was raised 10 per cent and more

above the invoice value, and 50 per cent was added to the duties. Held, that the appraisers were required to appraise the goods at their value at the time of their purchase, and that the appraisement was void, and that the duties on the increase in valuation and the penalty were illegally exacted.-Morlot v. Lawrence, 3 Blatch., 122; 17 Fed. Cas., 772.

Appraisement.-Three lots of Japanese curios imported. Importer being dissatisfied with the appraisement called for merchant appraisers. The appraisers reported many of the items below the value given in the invoice and their appraisement, taken as a whole, did not increase the value 10 per cent above the entry value. The collectors disregarded all valuations by the merchant appraisers of items on the invoice where made lower than the entry. Upon this basis the value was more than 10 per cent above the entered value and a penalty of 20 per cent was added. Held, that the collector erred in assuming that the importer was estopped from going below his own entered value on any single item in the invoice and the duties should have been assessed on the invoice as a whole, as appraised and valued by the merchant appraisers, and that the additional duty was erroneously assessed.-Yanada v. Spalding. 24 Fed. Rep., 21.

Appraisement Without Valuation.—The act of March 3, 1851, section 1 (9 Stat., 629), only varies the provisions of the act of 1846 so far as concerns the period of time with reference to which the valuation of imported merchandise is to be made, and does not affect the question of the imposition of extra duties because of undervaluation.

Where, under such circumstances, the appraisers, without any valuation of the goods, added to the first invoice exactly the difference between the two invoices, and a penalty of 20 per cent for undervaluation (under act of July 30, 1846, sec. 8) was imposed because such difference exceeded 10 per cent, held that under sections 16 and 17, act of 1842, an actual appraisal of purchased goods as of the time of purchase must be made to authorize the imposition of a penalty of 20 per cent for undervaluation.-Morris v. Maxwell, 3 Blatch., 143; 17 Fed. Cas., 824.

Charges for Freight Not Part of Appraised Value.-A cargo of goods was shipped from Canton to London and thence to New York. The freight from Canton to London was added as a part of the dutiable value. Held, (1) that this charge was not authorized; (2) that even if this freight were a proper charge it would form no part of the “appraised value" of the goods and its addition would not authorize the imposition of the 20 per cent penalty under the act of 1846.-Grinnell v. Lawrence, 1 Blatch., 346; 19 Hunt. Mer. Mag., 533; 11 Fed. Cas., 54.

Lemons taken on board at San Remo, and the freight on them from San Remo to Genoa was added to the dutiable charges, increasing the invoice value by more than 10 per cent, in consequence of which additional duties of 20 per cent were imposed. The addition of the freight between San Remo and Genoa was, under the circumstances of this case, illegal.

The imposition of the additional duty in consequence of the addition of the freight and the increase of the commissions was illegal.

Freight and commissions, although dutiable items in proper cases, are not the subject of penal duties in themselves, nor by being added to the value of the imports can they be the means of imposing a penalty on the latter.

A collector has authority, upon an appraisement, to assess the additional duty for undervaluation of purchased goods which is prescribed in this section, although the importer has made no addition in the entry to the invoice value of the goods.-Vaccari v. Maxwell, 3 Blatch., 368; 28 Fed. Cas., 862.

When additional duty is levied for a false entry it is upon the value of the goods alone and not upon their value with charges and commissions added.— Sampson v. Peaslee, 20 How., 571, 575.

Corrected Invoice Presented Before Appraisement.-Where an invoice of goods not purchased in a foreign market, but belonging to their producer, was entered at the customhouse by their consignee, and before any action was taken to determine the value of the goods a corrected invoice was given to the collector by the consignee, held that it was the duty of the collector to take the value of the goods in the corrected invoice as the entry valuation, and that it was illegal for him to impose a penalty for undervaluation because of the difference between the two invoices.-Howland v. Maxwell, 3 Blatch., 146; 12 Fed. Cas., 742.

Where, on an entry of goods by their consignee, he presented as a true invoice one sent to him by their owner and swore to it, and the collector directed the appraisers to value the goods as of the time of their shipment, and the consignee, before the appraisement was made, applied to the collector to amend the entry by adding to the price set down in it an amount sufficient to raise the goods to their fair market value abroad "in order to avoid the penalty," which was refused, held that it was lawful for the collector to so refuse and to impose duties on the value ascertained by the appraisers and a consequent penalty for undervaluation.

Where it is not shown either by the invoice, the entry, or the protest that the goods imported were purchased it is lawful for the collector to have them appraised at their value abroad at the time of their shipment and to collect duties on such value, and to impose any consequent penalty for undervaluation, although, in fact, the goods were purchased at the price in the entry and such price was their fair market value abroad at the time of their purchase.—Harriman v. Maxwell, 3 Blatch., 421; 11 Fed. Cas., 603.

Where the consignee of a quantity of corks (in 1856) imported from France presented on their entry an invoice and entry, both of which were erroneous through mistake and not through fraud, and immediately discovered the error and notified the collector of it and sent to France for a corrected invoice, delivered it to the collector, and requested permission to correct the error, which was refused, and the collector imposed duties on the value as stated in the true invoice and a penalty for undervaluation, without any appraisal of the goods, Held, that the penalty was illegally exacted.-Carnes v. Maxwell, 3 Blatch., 420; 5 Fed. Cas., 90.

Currency. Where an invoice sets forth the prices of goods in a foreign paper currency and also carries them out reduced to a specie standard and the importer makes the entry in the specie value and, on appraisement, the value is returned at the invoice paper currency prices, which is greater by 10 per cent than the specie value; it seems that this is not such an excess of appraised value over the value declared in the entry as to warrant the importation of a penalty of 20 per cent for undervaluation.-Fiedler v. Maxwell, 2 Blatch., 552; 8 Fed. Cas., 1194.

Duress. The importer added 18 per cent to the market value as stated in the invoice, with a protest stating that he made the addition to prevent a seizure and that the real value was the original invoice value. On like merchandise entered before by the importer 18 per cent had, on appraisal, been added to the invoice value and the goods had been seized for forfeiture. In a suit to recover the duties paid on the 18 per cent, Held, that the action could not be maintained. After the addition of the 18 per cent the value of the goods