Haas v. Arthur

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

Haas v. Arthur

11 F. Cas. 139, 14 Blatchf. 346, 1877 U.S. App. LEXIS 1815

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York

DecidedNovember 12, 1877

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 F. Cas. 139 (Haas v. Arthur) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haas v. Arthur, 11 F. Cas. 139, 14 Blatchf. 346, 1877 U.S. App. LEXIS 1815 (circtsdny 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

WALLACE, District Judge.

The plaintiffs, upon the entry of certain merchandise, added eighteen per cent to the market value as stated in the invoice, accompanying the act by a protest, in which they stated that they added the eighteenper cent to the invoice value under compulsion, to prevent a seizure of the merchandise, and that the real value was correctly set forth originally in the invoice. Similar merchandise had theretofore been entered by the plaintiffs upon similar invoices, and upon appraisal, eighteen per cent had been added, and the merchandise had thereupon been seized for forfeiture; and their object was to avoid such a result in the present entry. They now seek to recover from the defendant, the collector, the duty assessed upon the additional eighteen per cent.

The action cannot be maintained. Upon the entry of their merchandise, one of two courses was open to the plaintiffs. If they believed the market value of the merchandise to be correctly stated in the invoice, they could have relied upon this belief, and, in case it was fixed at a higher value, upon appraisement, could have had redress by an appeal from the appraisal. If they were unwilling to adopt this course, fearing the contingency of an appraisal which might fix the value of the merchandise at a sum so much greater than the invoice value, as to subject them to an action for penal duty or forfeiture, they had the right to add to the invoice value such sum as they should deem advisable, in which event there could not legally be an appraisal for a less value. No other course was open to the plaintiffs. Instead of selecting the former they selected the latter, and thereby put it beyond the power of the appraisers to fix a lower value than that on which the duties were collected. The plaintiffs could not qualify the effect of their act in adding to the value in the invoice, by assigning the reasons which induced them so to do. Having fixed the value at a sum below which there could not be an appraisal, they cannot be heard to complain of the result, and are liable to pay the duties assessed. Judgment is ordered for the defendant

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WALLACE, District Judge.

The plaintiffs, upon the entry of certain merchandise, added eighteen per cent to the market value as stated in the invoice, accompanying the act by a protest, in which they stated that they added the eighteenper cent to the invoice value under compulsion, to prevent a seizure of the merchandise, and that the real value was correctly set forth originally in the invoice. Similar merchandise had theretofore been entered by the plaintiffs upon similar invoices, and upon appraisal, eighteen per cent had been added, and the merchandise had thereupon been seized for forfeiture; and their object was to avoid such a result in the present entry. They now seek to recover from the defendant, the collector, the duty assessed upon the additional eighteen per cent.

The action cannot be maintained. Upon the entry of their merchandise, one of two courses was open to the plaintiffs. If they believed the market value of the merchandise to be correctly stated in the invoice, they could have relied upon this belief, and, in case it was fixed at a higher value, upon appraisement, could have had redress by an appeal from the appraisal. If they were unwilling to adopt this course, fearing the contingency of an appraisal which might fix the value of the merchandise at a sum so much greater than the invoice value, as to subject them to an action for penal duty or forfeiture, they had the right to add to the invoice value such sum as they should deem advisable, in which event there could not legally be an appraisal for a less value. No other course was open to the plaintiffs. Instead of selecting the former they selected the latter, and thereby put it beyond the power of the appraisers to fix a lower value than that on which the duties were collected. The plaintiffs could not qualify the effect of their act in adding to the value in the invoice, by assigning the reasons which induced them so to do. Having fixed the value at a sum below which there could not be an appraisal, they cannot be heard to complain of the result, and are liable to pay the duties assessed. Judgment is ordered for the defendant

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F. Cas. 139, 14 Blatchf. 346, 1877 U.S. App. LEXIS 1815, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haas-v-arthur-circtsdny-1877.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack