business may require in the departments." Merchandise was entered July 18th, 1861; duties liquidated on the 1st and 2d of August, 1861; the withdrawal entry made on the 19th of September, 1861; the importer being dissatisfied gave notice and took appeal from the decision of the collector on the 1st of October, 1861. This notice was considered good, and the entry referred to in the statute was said to be the withdrawal entry, and not the entry for warehousing." Justice Strong considers that there are two liquidations-one, a rough one, made at the time the bond is given, which is in a penalty in double the amount of duties; the other made known to the importer on withdrawal of the merchandise and payment of duties. "One of the conditions of his bond is that he pay the amount of duties to be ascertained under the laws then existing or thereafter enacted. He is thus informed that there is to be another liquidation, and that the law requires it to be made at the time when he shall make his withdrawal entry, and when the duties are required to be paid." 3 Since 1869, by treasury regulation, collectors keep a daily record of entries liquidated, and notice is given by posting transcripts of such record in some conspicuous place in the custom house." The Secretary of the Treasury regards the case of Westray v. United States as settling the principle that, as to merchandise entered for warehousing, the withdrawal entry for consumption is the liquidation of the entry, and that this is the period from which the ten days begin to run, and within which the notice must be given and appeal taken. This period is the initial period from which all the limitations start in relation to the notice to the collector, the appeal to the Secretary of Treasury, and suit against the collector. The rules in relation to duties are also applied to the decision of the collector in relation to all fees, charges and exactions. The same notice must be given, the same appeals taken, and within the same period. Warehouse and Bond.-Prior to the act of 1846, the duties were either paid or secured to be paid before the goods were landed. In certain exceptional cases, merchandise was allowed to be stored in certain storehouses designated by the collector, under the supervision and custody of the officers of the customs. Such were the cases where there was a failure to pay the duties estimated; of in 1 Testimony of a clerk in New York custom house, in Iselin v. Barney, 5 Blatch. C. C. 185. Iselin v. Barney, 5 Blatch. C. C. 185. 3 Westray v. United States, 18 Wall. 322, 329. See Brief of Ethan Allen, 18 Wall. 327. 22 Int. Rev. Rec. 200; Treasury Circular No. 2809. 6R S. U. S. § 2932. complete entry for want of original invoice or other cause; of cases of damage during the voyage, or the cases of wines, distilled spirits. and teas.1 In the language of Chief Justice Taney, pointing out the difference prior to and since 1846, "The importer himself had no right to land his merchandise, even at a port of entry, before the duties were paid. But when the entry at the custom house was imperfect for want of the proper documents, or where the goods were damaged on the voyage, and the duties could not be immediately ascertained; or the cash duties were not paid after the forms of entry had been complied with; in all of these cases the collector was directed, by existing laws, to take possession of such goods and place them in public stores, and retain them until the duties were paid; and as all this was to be done at the port of entry, public stores were necessary at such ports, and they had accordingly been provided for by law before the passage of the warehousing act. Now the warehousing act, so far as the landing and storing of goods is concerned, places goods entered for warehousing upon the same footing with goods upon which duties have not been paid." Warehouses are now a part of the system of the collection of duties. They are established at all ports of entry, and such ports of delivery as the Secretary of the Treasury may designate. If goods are entered for warehousing where the entry is made, the merchandise goes as a matter of course to the warehouse, and the importer designates at the time of entry the particular warehouse in which he desires the merchandise stored. These warehouses are of two kinds: the public stores leased by the Secretary of the Treasury, or hired by the collector with his sanction,* and the private warehouses. The latter are to be used solely for the purpose of storing warehouse merchandise, and are under the joint custody of the officers of the customs and the proprietor, and must be previously approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, and all the labor on the merchandise stored in such warehouses must be performed at the expense of the owner.5 The proprietors of these warehouses are required to give bonds in such sums as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, conditioned to hold harmless the United States and its officers from loss of any kind arising from the deposit of mer 1 Gordon's Dig. Rev. Laws, pp. 90, 91; Act of 1799, § 69; United States v. 1250 Chests of Tea, 12 Wheat. 487. 9 Tremlett v. Adams, 13 How. 295, 304. 3 R. S. U. S. §§ 2962, 2963, 2964, 2965; Tremlett v. Adams, 13 How. 295. This case holds that the provisions in relation to warehousing do not apply to ports of delivery, except by action of the Secretary of the Treasury. 4 R. S. U. S. §§ 2954, 2955, 2956, 2957; Atkins v. Peaselee, 1 Cliff. 446. chandise therein.' The approval of the Secretary of the Treasury of private warehouses may be revoked at pleasure. It is not a right, but a privilege accorded to the proprietor. The owner may be required to pay the salary of an inspector to superintend the receipt and delivery of goods from such warehouse. Under the act of 1846, the importer placing his goods in a private bonded warehouse, with consent of the collector, may be required to pay half the usual charges when stored in a public warehouse, and even if the merchandise is deposited in his own warehouse, he may be compelled to pay half storage. But if the merchandise is entered for warehousing, and before removal from the vessel the importer changes his entry, and makes entry for consumption, a demand of half a month's storage is illegal. By express words of the statute the merchandise is now stored, whether in public or private stores, at the charge of the importer. These private warehouses, whether used alone by the owner for his own importations, or used in the storage business, are generally known since 1846 as private bonded warehouses, or simply bonded warehouses, but they are included in the term public stores, in an act of Congress allowing the collector to retain a certain amount for storage in public stores. These bonded warehouses, while they are private in a certain sense, in another they are public, and they are secured under joint locks and keys of the inspector and importer or owner of the warehouse. Under the present system, merchandise deposited for want of invoice, non-payment of duties, or unclaimed, goes to the public warehouse of the government; merchandise entered for warehousing may go to publie warehouses, or at the option of the importer to such warehouse as he may designate. In either case the merchandise is stored at the charge and risk of the owner.10 Under the act of 1851, it was held that as to goods lost while on deposit in a public warehouse, the collector could not be made liable for their value unless he was guilty of actual personal negligence, and that such negligence would not be inferred from the mere loss; as to the storekeeper, who R. S. U. S. § 2911: 92 Int. Rev. Rec. 1; Treasury Circular No. 2500. Two buildings cannot be included in one bond. * Corkler. Maxwell, & Blatch. C. C. 413. * Clarke. Peaselee, 1 Cliff. 343. R. S. U.S. $ 2964. * Atkins r. Peaselee, 1 Cliff. 446. * Irvine r. Schell, 5 Blatch. C. C. 157. * Atkins r. Peaselee, 1 Cliff 446. * United States r. Macdonald, 5 Wall, 647, 637, opinion of Clifford, J., fully reviewing the warehouse acts. *R. S. U. S. §§ 2960, 2964. R. S. T. S. §§ 2962, 2968, 2964, 2965, 2569. had actual custody of the goods, it was intimated that perhaps a different rule would prevail. It was claimed that the suit was substantially against the government, and that as in a suit against the collector for illegal duties exacted, the government would pay the judgment. But the court took the view that in such case the payment would be a matter of favor depending on the circumstances of the esse, and not a matter of right, as in the case of duties, and that the suit must be regarded as one against the collector individually and not against the government.1 The sections of the statutes just quoted require the importer to take all risk of the deposit, yet it is not to be supposed that if damage is sustained to the goods by the actual negligence of the collector or any other person, that such person is tected by the statute. The fair construction is that it exonerates the government from all claim for loss, and all its officers who discharge their duties in connection with the merchandise with reasonable care. pro After goods are deposited in a warehouse, government or bonded, they may be withdrawn for consumption at any time within one year from the date of original importation, on payment of duties and the charges to which they may be subject. The privilege of deposit may be extended to three years, by payment of ten per cent. additional on the amount of the duties and charges due at time of withdrawal." The duties and charges are secured by the bond of the importer given at the time of his entry for warehousing, in double the amount of duties, with such securities as are satisfactory to the collector. The duties for the purpose of giving this bond are approximately estimated at the time of the entry and before appraisal and examination, and subsequently they are determined with more accuracy. The duties having been fixed by the collector after appraisement, can errors in favor of the government be corrected at the time of withdrawal for consumption? Goods were entered as subject to a duty of fifteen per cent., a bond was given and the goods warehoused. When the withdrawal entry for consumption was made, the collector, ascertaining that he had made a mistake as to the percentage to which the goods were liable, raised it to twenty-four per cent., and required its payment. It was held that it was the duty of the collector to exact payment before parting with the possession of the goods, but that the mistake of the collector did not disable the government from collecting the legal rate, nor release the importer from the obligation imposed by law, and even if the collector had parted with the goods, the 1 Brissac & De Fontaine v. Lawrence, 2 Blatch. C. C. 121. R. S. U. S. § 2970. 3 R. S. U. S. § 2964. importer would have been liable to an action to recover the duties not paid. This case has an important bearing on the question as to what is the true period of liquidation, when goods are entered for warehousing. If this decision be correct, the estimation of duties by the collector, which the statute declares shall be final, is not final, so far as the government is concerned at least, until the goods pass from the custody of the collector. If not final for the purpose of the government in imposing duties, it ought not to be final as to the importer as to the period from which the limitation on his right of appeal should It strongly supports the view taken by the Secretary of the Treasury, that the case of United States v. Westray fixes the period from which the ten days begins to run, as the withdrawal entry. run. It is now provided by statute that when duties have been "liquidated and paid," such settlement of duties after one year from date of entry, in absence of fraud, shall be final and conclusive." The Secretary of the Treasury does not consider the act as applying to cases where there has not been an actual payment of the duties, such as goods withdrawn for consumption under the privilege of a penal bond. In one case duties were estimated, and on a subsequent liquidation of the entry it was found that it was too low by $79 82, though the notice of liquidation posted in the custom house indicated that there had been no change. When the error was known it was corrected, and notice given to the importer; and although more than one year had elapsed, he was required to pay.3 Withdrawal for Exportation.-If the importer desires to export the goods, he can do so, and upon furnishing evidence to the collector that the goods have been landed abroad, the duties, if they have been paid, will be returned except one per cent. If no duties have been paid, upon furnishing satisfactory security that the merchandise shall be landed out of the jurisdiction of the United States, a permit for exportation will be granted without payment of duties, but all expenses incurred must be paid.5 Withdrawal for Transportation.-At any time within the three years goods may be transhipped to any port of the Pacific or western coast, on arrival to be subject to the same rules and regulations as if originally imported there. How this is to be accomplished the stat 1 Reimer v. Schell, 4 Blatch. C. C. 328. 2 Act of Congress, June 22, 1874, § 21; 18 Stat. U. S. p. 190. 3 22 Int. Rev. Rec. 262; Treasury Circular No. 2884. R. S. U. S. §§ 2971, 2977, 2978. 6 R. S. U. S. § 2971. R. S. U. S. § 2979. |