Page images
PDF
EPUB

and condemnation of goods, provides certain procedures as a condition precedent to the recovery of such reimbursement. When complied with the right of reimbursement accrues. When that right thus accrued is denied it may be enforced, as here sought, under the provisions of section 14 by due protest. Until complied with the right of reimbursement, asserted in Lawder v. Stone and established by express statute in this subsection, does not accrue. It follows that, upon the grounds here stated, rather than those stated in the decision of the Board of General Appraisers, the appellant is without remedy. Affirmed.

(T. D. 33481.)

Nails with leather heads.

RICHARD & Co. v. UNITED STATES (No. 1061).

NAILS IN CHIEF VALUE OF LEATHER.

The evidence does not show the nails of the importation are wrought iron or steel, and the return of the appraiser shows them to be in chief value of leather. They are dutiable under paragraph 452, tariff act of 1909.-Vantine v. United States (T. D. 33124).

United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 23, 1913.

APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 30211 (T. D. 32884) and Abstract 30460 (T. D. 32943).

[Affirmed.]

Comstock & Washburn (George J. Puckhafer on the brief) for appellants.

William L. Wemple, Assistant Attorney General (Martin T. Baldwin, special attorney, of counsel), for the United States.

Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, BARBER, DE VRIES, and MARTIN, Judges. MONTGOMERY, Presiding Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: The appraiser's report, which is uncontradicted by the record, states that the merchandise in question in this case "consists of furniture nails composed of leather and metal, leather being the component material of chief value." Duty was assessed at the rate of 40 per cent ad valorem under the provision for articles composed in chief value of leather in paragraph 452 of the tariff act of 1909. Various claims were made in the protests, but the only claims now relied on by the importers are those under paragraphs 160 and 161, covering certain specified kinds of wrought iron or steel nails. The material portions of the paragraphs in question read as follows: 452. * * * Manufactures of leather, or of which leather is the component material of chief value, not specially provided for in this section, forty per centum ad valorem; *

*

160. Horseshoe nails, hob nails, and all other wrought iron or steel nails not specially provided for in this section, one and one-half cents per pound.

161. Wire nails made of wrought iron or steel, not less than one inch in length and not lighter than number sixteen wire gauge, four-tenths of one one cent per pound; less than one inch in length and lighter than number sixteen wire gauge, three-fourths of one cent per pound.

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the action of the collector and overruled all the protests, and from that ruling the importers have appealed to this court.

The evidence does not disclose that the metal portion of the nails is wrought iron or steel, even if we were able to say from an inspection that the metal is either iron or steel rather than an alloy. Neither does an inspection of the sample lead to the conclusion that the predominant material is metal. On the other hand, the return of the appraiser shows the article to be in chief value of leather. The decision of the board was clearly right, on the authority of Vantine v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 488; T. D. 33124) and Hirsch v. United States (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., —; T. D. 33365).

The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

(T. D. 33482.)

Rotten fruit.

LAURICELLA et al. v. UNITED STATES (No. 1063).

1. REARRANGING LANGUAGE IN A STATUTE.

It is a familiar principle of statutory construction that for the determination of legislative intent courts may assemble provisions of a statute in accord with that intent.

2. SUBSECTION 22, SECTION 28, TARIFF ACT OF 1909.

Nonimportation of a part of the cargo of lemons was claimed. The provision of the statute is that "proof" of destruction or nonimportation "shall be lodged with the collector of customs," etc. There is no limitation in the language of the statute of the kind of proof or otherwise save as to time when this proof may be made by the importer. The statute allows ten days to introduce such proof; to limit this to five, as is sought in the Treasury regulation, is in excess of statutory power.-Vandegrift v. United States (3 Ct. Cust. Appls., 198; T. D. 32470) distinguished.

United States Court of Customs Appeals, May 23, 1913.

APPEAL from Board of United States General Appraisers, G. A. 7398 (T. D. 32881), (Abstract 30352 (T. D. 32905).

[Reversed.]

Brown & Gerry for appellants.

William L. Wemple, Assistant Attorney General (William A. Robertson, special attorney, of counsel), for the United States.

Before MONTGOMERY, SMITH, BARBER, DEVRIES, and MARTIN, Judges.

DE VRIES, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This appeal concerns an importation of fruit at the port of New York, claimed to have suffered a shortage or nonimportation by reason of decay or rot, for which reason such part was condemned by the board of health at that port and destroyed. The claim is made under subsection 22 of section 28 of the tariff act of 1909, and overruled by the Board of General Appraisers.

That subsection reads:

SEC. 22. No allowance shall be made in the estimation and liquidation of duties for shortage or nonimportation caused by decay, destruction or injury to fruit or other perishable articles imported into the United States whereby their commercial value has been destroyed, unless under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Proof to ascertain such destruction or nonimportation shall be lodged with the collector of customs of the port where such merchandise has been landed, or the person acting as such, within ten days after the landing of such merchandise. The provisions hereof shall apply whether or not the merchandise has been entered, and whether or not the duties have been paid or secured to be paid, and whether or not a permit of delivery has been granted to the owner or consignee. Nor shall any allowance be made for damage, but the importers may within ten days after entry abandon to the United States all or any portion of goods, wares or merchandise of every description included in any invoice and be relieved from the payment of duties on the portion so abandoned: Provided, That the portion so abandoned shall amount to ten per centum or more of the total value or quantity of the invoice. The right of abandonment herein provided for may be exercised whether the goods, wares or merchandise have been damaged or not, or whether or not the same have any commercial value: Provided further, That section twenty-eight hundred and ninety-nine of the Revised Statutes, relating to the return of packages unopened for appraisement, shall in no wise prohibit the right of importers to make all needful examinations to determine whether the right to abandon accrues, or whether by reason of total destruction there is a nonimportation in whole or in part. All merchandise abandoned to the Government by the importers shall be delivered by the importers thereof at such place within the port of arrival as the chief officer of customs may direct, and on the failure of the importers to comply with the direction of the collector or the chief officer of customs, as the case may be, the abandoned merchandise shall be disposed of by the customs authorities under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, at the expense of such importers. Where imported fruit or perishable goods have been condemned at the port of original entry within ten days after landing, by health officers or other legally constituted authorities, the importers or their agents shall, within twenty-four hours after such condemnation, lodge with the collector, or the person acting as collector, of said port, notice thereof in writing, together with an invoice description and the quantity of the articles condemned, their location, and the name of the vessel in which imported. Upon receipt of said notice the collector, or person acting as collector, shill at once cause an investigation and a report to be made in writing by at least two customs officers touching the identity and quantity of fruit or perishable goods condemned, and unless proof to ascertain the shortage or nonimportation of fruit or perishable goods shall have been lodged as herein required, or if the importer or his agent fails to notify the collector of such condemnation proceedings as herein provided, proof of such shortage or nonimportation shall not be deemed established and no allowance shall be made in the liquidation of duties chargeable thereon.

One of the questions involved is whether or not the power vested in the Secretary of the Treasury in said subsection to make specific regulations in the premises extends to the part thereof relating to condemnation by a board of health or other legally constituted authorities. We think that question is answered by a transposition of the provisions of subsection 22 accordingly as they are related by reason of subject matter.

It is a familiar principle of statutory construction that in the ascertainment of legislative intent courts may assemble provisions of a

statute to accord with that intent.

When the context of a statute manifests, as in this case, provisions related according to subject matter and unrelated otherwise, though scattered in typographical arrangement, the application of the rule and the necessity therefor are apparent.

Words, phrases, and sentences may be transposed when necessary to give effect to all the words of a statute and to carry out the manifest intent.-Lewis's Sutherland Statutory Construction (sec. 386).

If a condition or qualifying clause has been misplaced, so that in the connection where it is inserted it is absurd or nonsensical, the court will apply it to its proper subject and give it effect if the statute affords the proper clues and it can be done in furtherance of its obvious intent.-Lewis's Sutherland Statutory Construction (sec. 410).

This statute embraces three separate and distinct matters. The first provides an allowance for "shortage or nonimportation" caused by decay, "destruction," or injury to fruit. The second provides an allowance for "damage," and permits, under prescribed circumstances, an "abandonment" to the Government. The third provides for an allowance where goods are "condemned by the health officers or other legally constituted authorities."

The provisions of the subsection clearly and unquestionably relating to these respective different matters are scattered indiscriminately through the subsection. It will be instructive, therefore, as stated, in the determination of the legislative intent to assemble those provisions relating to the particular subject matter. This appeal involves the subject matter of the third provision above stated, being a claim for an allowance on account of goods condemned by health officers. The provisions of subsection 22 relating to the subjects matter may be assembled and quoted as follows:

(1) SHORTAGE OR NONIMPORTATION.

SEC. 22. No allowance shall be made in the estimation and liquidation of duties for shortage or nonimportation caused by decay, destruction or injury to fruit or other perishable articles imported into the United States whereby their commercial value has been destroyed, unless under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. Proof to ascertain such destruction or nonimportation shall be lodged with the collector of customs of the port where such merchandise has been landed, or the person acting as such, within ten days after the landing of such merchandise. * Unless proof to ascertain the shortage or nonimportation of fruit or perishable goods shall have been lodged as herein required, proof of such shortage or nonimportation shall not be deemed established and no allowance shall be made in the liquidation of duties chargeable thereon. The provisions hereof shall apply whether or not the merchandise has been entered, and whether or not the duties have been paid or secured to be paid, and whether or not a permit of delivery has been granted to the owner or consignee.

(2) DAMAGE.

*

*

Nor shall any allowance be made for damage, but the importers may within ten days after such entry abandon to the United States all or any portion of goods, wares, or merchandise of every description included in any invoice and be relieved from

the payment of duties on the portion so abandoned: Provided, That the portion so abandoned shall amount to ten per centum or more of the total value or quantity of the invoice. The right of abandonment herein provided for may be exercised whether the goods, wares, or merchandise have been damaged or not, or whether or not the same have any commercial value: Provided further, That section twenty-eight hundred and ninety-nine of the Revised Statutes, relating to the return of packages unopened for appraisement, shall in no wise prohibit the right of importers to make all needful examinations to determine whether the right to abandon accrues. All merchandise abandoned to the Government by the importers shall be delivered by the importers thereof at such place within the port of arrival as the chief officer of customs may direct, and on the failure of the importers to comply with the direction of the collector or the chief officer of customs, as the case may be, the abandoned merchandise shall be disposed of by the customs authorities under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe, at the expense of the importers.

(3) CONDEMNATION.

Where imported fruit or perishable goods have been condemned at the port of original entry within ten days after landing, by health officers or other legally constituted authorities, the importers or their agents shall, within twenty-four hours after such condemnation, lodge with the collector, or the person acting as collector, of said port, notice thereof in writing, together with an invoice description and the quantity of the articles condemned, their location, and the name of the vessel in which imported. Upon receipt of said notice the collector, or person acting as collector, shall at once cause an investigation and a report to be made in writing by at least two customs officers touching the identity and quantity of fruit or perishable goods condemned, and * * * if the importer or his agent fails to notify the collector of such condemnation proceedings as herein provided, * * * no allowance shall be made in the liquidation of duties chargeable thereon.

The predication of two different subjects of the single phrase "no allowance shall be made in the liquidation of duties chargeable thereon" requires repetition of that phrase to preserve the congressional purpose in the arranged text in (1) and (3).

It will be observed, under this arrangement, that the words used in the last part of the subsection, as arranged in enactment, “unless proof to ascertain the shortage or nonimportation of fruit or perishable goods shall have been lodged as herein required," and the other provisions relating to proof concerning shortage or nonimportation are thereby given an apposite antecedent to the provisions relating to "proof" as to that subject matter appearing only earlier in the act as follows:

Proof to ascertain such destruction or nonimportation shall be lodged with the collector of customs of the port where such merchandise has been landed, or the person acting as such, within ten days after the landing of such merchandise.

That this was the view taken by the Treasury Department when the regulations in question were promulgated is shown by T. D. 30023 and as subsequently amended in T. D. 31699 and T. D. 32511. It will be noted, in passing, that these regulations of the Treasury Department are divided into three separate and dis

« PreviousContinue »