satisfy him that the case was within the terms of the section. U. S. v. Cornell Steamboat Co., (1905) 137 Fed. 455, 69 C. C. A. 603, affirmed (1906) 202 U. S. 184, 26 S. Ct. 648, 50 U. S. (L. ed.) 987.

Salvage for goods saved from fire. Where imported merchandise while in customs custody on board a vessel was saved from destruction by fire, it was held that these facts brought the case within section 2984, under which the government would have been liable

Vol. II, p. 705, sec. 2987.

The offense cre

Construction of statute. ated by this section is complete on the removal of goods subject to duty, on which duty has not been paid, from the warehouse; and subsequent concealment outside a warehouse after removal, while admissible, in proof of the fraudulent intent in the removal, does not constitute a substantive offense, nor add anything to the removal which preceded it. U. S. r. Ehrgott, (1910) 182 Fed. 267.

Construction of indictment. Where an indictment for removing merchandise from a public warehouse without paying the duty thereon alleged that the goods had been deposited in Brooklyn in a warehouse under bond, and then alleged that on a given day the importer withdrew them under a false pretense that they were to be exported, the term false pretense" should be construed to mean at least that the defendant did not mean to export the goods when he removed them. U. S. v. Ehrgott, (1910) 182 Fed. 267.

Vol. II, p. 712, sec. 1.

Amendment. This section was amended by Act of Jan. 22, 1903, ch. 197, 32 Stat. L. 780, 10 Fed. Stat. Annot. 77; by Act of Feb. 17, 1905, ch. 580, 33 Stat. L, 718, 10 Fed. Stat. Annot. 74; by Act of Feb. 17, 1905, ch. 582, 33 Stat. L. 719, 10 Fed. Stat. Annot. 76; by Act of Feb. 6, 1907, ch. 470, 34 Stat. L. 880, 1909 Supp. Fed. Stat. Annot. 105; by Act of Feb. 11, 1908, ch. 22, 35 Stat. L. 7,

Vol. II, p. 712, sec. 2.

Right to remove from district for examination. The collector at the port of entry of imported goods is made by law the custodian. of such goods until the payment of the duties thereon, and his duty as such custodian is to be performed within his own district. His duties are prescribed by statute, and an order from the Treasury Department instructing him to send or remove the goods out of his district, "for submission to trade experts," is without legal authority, and will

to refund the duties already paid on the merchandise if it had been destroyed; that the government had an interest which should respond to those whose services prevented the loss which it would have sustained through refund; and that the salvors were entitled to a salvage award on the basis of the amount that had been thus put at risk. U. S. r. Cornell Steamboat Co., (1905) 137 Fed. 455, 69 C. C. A. 603, affirmed (1906) 202 U. S. 184, 26 S. Ct. 648, 50 U. S. (L. ed.) 987.

Place of violation. — An indictment alleg. ing that certain beans subject to duty had been deposited in a warehouse in Brooklyn, and that on a given day the defendant withdrew them under bond on the false pretense that they were to be exported, and that he removed the goods from the warehouse and concealed them in Manhattan, was held not to charge a crime committed in the southern district of New York. U. S. v. Ehrgott, (1910) 182 Fed. 267.

The word "fraudulently," as used in this section, means that the acts must be done with an intent to evade the law. U. S. v. Ehrgott, (1910) 182 Fed. 267.

"Warehouse." Where dutiable goods are removed from a warehouse without payment of duty and subsequently concealed, the truck on which the goods are removed cannot be considered to be a warehouse within this section. U. S. v. Ehrgott, (1910) 182 Fed. 267.

1909 Supp. Fed. Stat. Annot. 106; by Act of Feb. 24, 1908, ch. 36, 35 Stat. L. 35, 1909 Supp. Fed. Stat. Annot. 107; by Act of May 23, 1908, ch. 187, secs. 4, 7, 35 Stat. L. 245, 1909 Supp. Fed. Stat. Annot. 108; by Act of Feb. 23, 1909, ch. 171, sec. 1, 35 Stat. L. 643, 1909 Supp. Fed. Stat. Annot. 111; by Act of Feb. 27, 1909, ch. 226, 35 Stat. L. 659, 1909 Supp. Fed. Stat. Annot. 112.

not justify a removal of the goods from the collector's district. The importer, having the right to a speedy appraisal by the officers designated by law and to withdraw the goods on payment of the duties, has a substantial right to have them remain in the custody of the collector at the port of entry, and may invoke the power of the courts by injunction to prevent their removal. Bruhl v. Wilson, (1903) 123 Fed. 957.

Annot. 77; by Act of March 24, 1904, ch. 815, 33 Stat. L. 145, 10 Fed. Stat. Annot. 74; by Act of April 27, 1904, ch. 1627, 33 Stat. L. 362, 10 Fed. Stat. Annot. 79; by Act of

April 28, 1904, ch. 1825, 33 Stat. L. 574, 10 Fed. Stat. Annot. 77; by Act of March 1, 1905, ch. 1300, 33 Stat. L. 822, 10 Fed. Stat. Annot. 78; by Act of Feb. 11, 1908, ch. 20, 35 Stat. L. 7, 1909 Supp. Fed. Stat. Annot. 715; by Act of Feb. 24, 1908, ch. 35, 35 Stat. L. 35, 1909 Supp. Fed. Stat. Annot. 107; by Act of

Vol. II, p. 734, sec. 3030.

Merchandise entitled to debenture. - The words 66 entitled to debenture" apply only to imported goods on which the duties have been paid, and which have been entered for export, and having the benefit of drawback under the preceding sections, are entitled to

Vol. II, p. 741, sec. 17.

Section not repealed. This section was not repealed by section 7 of the Act of Aug. 27, 1894, 28 Stat. L. 509, 548, or section 12 of the Act of July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. L. 207. 2 Fed. Stat. Annot. 508, but continues in (1909) 27 Op. Atty. Gen. 228.

force.

The amount of drawback is regulated by the Act of July 24, 1897, sec. 30, 30 Stat. L. 211, 2 Fed. Stat. Annot. 512, and is ninetynine per cent. of the duties paid. (1909) 27 Op. Atty.-Gen. 228.

toms.

Applicable to vessels leaving on own botThe drawback provision of section 17 applies not only to vessels exported on the decks of other vessels but applies also to vessels leaving the United States on their, own bottoms. (1909) 27 Op. Atty.-Gen. 228. Appliances. Those appliances which are permanently attached to a vessel and which would remain on board were the vessel to be laid up for a long period are parts of the

Vol. 11, p. 741, sec. 3058.

Relation of consignor immaterial. The Consignee of imported goods is deemed the owner for the purpose of the collection of the duties thereon, under this section, and it is no defense to an action against the consignee for such duties that the consignor or any

April 6, 1908, ch. 135, 35 Stat. L. 58, 1909 Supp. Fed. Stat. Annot. 107; by Act of May 23, 1908, ch. 187, sec. 6, 35 Stat. L. 245, 1909 Supp. Fed. Stat. Annot. 108; by Act of March 3, 1909, ch. 261, 35 Stat. L. 780, 1909 Supp. Fed. Stat. Annot. 112.

Vol. II, p. 743, sec. 3062.

'Property of innocent owner. A team used in the transportation of smuggled merchandise is forfeitable, regardless of the fact that its owner and its driver did not have knowl

Vol. II, p. 743, sec. 3063.

Livery. This section should be construed as excluding vehicles other than those used by common carriers from its application, and hence a vehicle owned and let by a liveryman, and used wholly within the United States for the purposes of transporting liquor il

Vol. II, p. 746, sec. 3074.

Appraisement of smuggled goods. When property subject to forfeiture for smuggling or cognate offenses is seized, the appraisement should be in accordance with section

Vol. II, p. 748, sec. 3081.

Home value. The purpose of the law as to smuggled or unentered goods requires the exaction of the so-called "home value" as the condition of release on payment of the appraised value, but not as implying the assessment of duties on such goods, (1903) 24 Op. Atty. Gen. 583.

Extent of power to release. The power of the Secretary of the Treasury to release and remit fines, penalties, and forfeitures under sections 3081 and 5293, R. S., and under sections 17 and 18 of the Act of June 22, 1874, 18 Stat. L. 189, now subject to the restriction of section 7 of the Customs Administrative Act as amended (2 Fed. Stat. Annot. 615), relates only to civil liability and consequences where the value of the property seized or the amount of the fine or forfeiture incurred does not exceed $1,000; but does not include penalties “accrued" or "incurred" which have been "adjudged" as part of the punishment under an "indictment." (1903) 24 Op. Atty. Gen. 583.

Failure of Secretary of Treasury to promulgate regulations. On proceedings under

Vol. II, p. 748, sec. 3082.

Necessity for intent to defraud. — Proceedings for forfeiture of merchandise illegally imported may be sustained under this seetion, though the United States has not been defrauded of any sum, and there has been no intent to defraud. U. S. r. Fifty Waltham Watch Movements, (1905) 139 Fed. 291.

"Contrary to law." It has been held that the words "contrary to law." as used in this section, relate to legal provisions other than those found in such section. Rogers r. U. S. (1910) 180 Fed. 54, 103 C. C. A. 408.

"Import or bring."- This section imposes a penalty on any person who shall fraudulently or knowingly import or bring into the United States any merchandise contrary to law. Section 2802, 2 Fed. Stat. Annot. 645,

edge of the purposes for which it was being used. Such knowledge is unnecessary, except in the case of common carriers. U. S. v. One Black Horse, (1906) 147 Fed. 770.

legally brought across the Canadian border, was subject to seizure and forfeiture, though the liveryman had no knowledge of the purpose for which the team was to be used. U. S. v. One Black Horse, (1904) 129 Fed. 167.

3074, R. S., and not under section 13 of the Customs Administrative Act, 26 Stat. L. 136, 2 Fed. Stat. Annot. 615. (1903) 24 Op. Atty. Gen. 583.

this section for the forfeiture of merchandise imported contrary to law, which would have been admissible free of duty on compliance with regulations which the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized by law to prescribe, it may not be maintained in defense that the regulations have not been promulgated, and that therefore the importer was justified in importing the merchandise according to his own convenience, independently of the requirements of law. Such an importation would be contrary to law" under said section. U. S. r. Fifty Waltham Watch Movements, (1905) 139 Fed. 291.

Mere intent to smuggle not sufficient. — It is immateriai that a person bringing goods to the United States intends to smuggle them. If the time has not passed when it is his duty to make the necessary declaration, and there remains an opportunity for him to change his mind, the goods are not subject to forfeiture under section 3082. U. S. r. One Pearl Chain, (1904) 139 Fed. 510; U. S. r. One Pearl Chain, (C. C. A. 1905) 139 Fed. 513.

imposes a penalty whenever any article subject to duty is found in the baggage of a person arriving within the United States which was not at the time of making entry therefor mentioned to the collector. It was held that the term "import or bring" does not require that the offense designated in section 3082 should be complete before the merchandise is landed, so as to exclude cases within section 2802. where the entry is not made till after the baggage is landed, but includes the whole act of bringing dutiable articles into the United States. U. S. r. Chesbrough, (1910) 176 Fed. 778.

Merchandise scope of meaning. — In this section, prescribing a penalty for imparting or bringing into the United States any mer

chandise contrary to law, the term "merchandise " is not restricted to general merchandise as distinguished from personal baggage, especially in view of section 2766, 2 Fed. Stat. Annot. 636, declaring that the word "merchandise" may include goods, wares, and chattels of every description capable of being imported, and sections 2799, 2 Fed. Stat. Annot. 644, and 2802, 2 Fed. Stat. Annot. 645, showing that wearing apparel and other personal baggage are embraced within the term. U. S. v. Chesbrough, (1910) 176 Fed. 778.

Burden of proof. On a suit by the United States, under this section, to forfeit articles found in the baggage of a person arriving in the United States, and seized as fraudulently imported, the burden of proof is not upon the claimant of the articles, unless the court finds that there is probable cause for seizing them. If at the close of the government's case there is not enough evidence to go to the jury, there is not such probable cause as to put the burden of proof upon the claimant. U. S. v. One Pearl Chain, (1904) 139 Fed.

510.

Action in rem for forfeiture. Where it was charged that certain precious stones and jewelry were imported with intent to defraud the United States of duty thereon, it was held that a proceeding in rem to forfeit the same was properly brought under this section. But such proceeding in rem does not lie under said section to forfeit money aris ing from the sale in this country of goods fraudulently imported. U. S. v. A Lot Precious Stones, (C. C. A. 1905) 134 Fed. 61.

Bar of former acquittal. - Where a person charged to have fraudulently imported certain merchandise with intent to defraud the United States of duty legally payable thereon was tried and acquitted, it was held that such acquittal was a bar to a further proceeding to forfeit the merchandise as against him. A Lot Precious Stones, (C. C. A.

V. S. v. 1905) 134 Fed. 61. Effect of nolle prosequi. An information having been filed to forfeit certain merchandise and money for fraudulent importation, with intent to defraud the United States of duty, indictments were found against the alleged importer and his wife; and on trial

thereof

the importer was acquitted, after which the indictment against the wife was It was held that such nolle prosequi was not a judgment of acquittal, and was,

nolled.

Chief officer of customs. - - A deputy collector of customs. with headquarters in the customs district of Vermont, but stationed for service at Montreal, Canada, was held to

therefore, no bar to the proceeding to forfeit as against the wife. U. S. v. A Lot Precious Stones, (C. C. A. 1905) 134 Fed. 61.

Failure to enter free goods. An importer, for the purpose of serving his own pecuniary interests, intentionally omitted to meet the requirements of the customs laws of the United States, in that he failed to enter certain imported articles at any custom house, and to comply otherwise with the law. If duly imported, the articles would have been free of duty. It was held that this was an offense which rendered the merchandise liable to forfeiture, under section 3082, as imported "knowingly .. contrary to law." U. S. v. Fifty Waltham Watch Movements, (1905) 139 Fed. 291.

Waiver.

That the claimant, in an action.

to recover property seized for failure to declare the same for duty, moved the court to direct a verdict in her favor, was held not to constitute a waiver of her right to reserve exceptions to the refusal of her request to send the case to the jury after the denial of her motion to direct. One Pearl Chain v. U. S., (C. C. A. 1903) 123 Fed. 371.

Jewelry worn upon the person. - In One Pearl Chain v. U. S., (C. C. A. 1903) 123 Fed. 371, it appeared that when custom house officers boarded a steamship on which claim. ant was a passenger, a blank for the declaration of articles liable to duty was presented to her for execution. She declined to execute it, but appeared before the officer for examination, and informed him that she had bought wearing apparel abroad, but was unable to state the amount. No further specific questions were asked her, and the collector filled up the blanks with the words "wearing apparel, value not known," which she signed. In the blank, under the head of " wearing apparel," "jewelry" was included, and the plaintiff testified that she understood that wearing apparel covered her jewelry. At the time of landing, and before examination of her baggage, she wore a pearl necklace, purchased abroad, which was visible to the officers, and which was subsequently seized before claimant's baggage had been passed. It was held that such facts were insufficient to warrant a finding as a matter of law that claimant had done nothing to advise the gov ernment of her possession of such article before landing to justify a forfeiture thereof under section 3082, authorizing forfeiture of articles fraudulently imported.

-

Pendency of protest as to part of importation. The presence of a protest relating to a portion of an importation does not give the collector the right to reliquidate as to another portion to which the protest does not relate. Cassel v. U. S., (1906) 146 Fed. 146. Time from which year runs. The entry referred to in this paragraph does not mean the entire transaction leading up to the liquidation, but the act of the importer in presenting to the collector the document known as an entry." Cassel . U. S., (1906) 146 Fed. 146.

-

Sufficiency of protest. With no protest other than an oral complaint, importers acquiesced in a customs ruling that involved an increase in the duties on their goods. It was held that there had not been such a "protest" as is contemplated by section 21, making the settlement of duties final "in the absence of protest." Gulbenkian v. U. S., (1909) 175 Fed. 860.

Effect of filing protest. — The filing of a protest suspends the running of the statute until the protest is decided. Klumpp v. Thomas, (1908) 162 Fed. 853, 89 C. C. A. 543.

Vol. II, p. 761, sec. 22.

Limitation of prosecution. — In proceedings for the forfeiture of certain merchandise imported without the payment of duty it appeared by the averments in the pleadings that the claimant of the property had owned it for more than five years, without knowing or having reason to suspect that it had been imported, that he had never concealed it, and that neither he nor it had since been out of the United States, and that the importation of the merchandise was not known to the customs officers until about six years after the forfeiture accrued. It was held that the pro

section 6 of this Act (3 Fed. Stat. Annot. 107) the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized, under section 4, to award compensation to a Canadian customs official who furnished information which resulted in a forfeiture of certain diamonds for violation of section 3082, R. S., 2 Fed. Stat. Annot. 748. (1902) 24 Op. Atty.-Gen. 61.

this section, for remission of the penalty of forfeiture, is not, though charged with due notice of the forfeiture proceedings, debarred from making such application by reason of failure to appear as claimant in those proceedings. U. S. v. 150 7-12 Dozen Long Gloves, (1909) 168 Fed. 1010.

Change in method of assessing duties. — Under this section it is not fraud by the government, where subordinate customs officers, without notice to importers or instructions from their superior officers, make a change in the method of assessing duties, after years of uniform practice. Gulbenkian v. Ú. S., (1909) 175 Fed. 860.

Reliquidation. Under this section a collector may reliquidate an entry and assess increased duties at any time before the expiration of a year, although the duties first assessed have been paid and the goods with drawn for consumption. U. S. v. Mexican International R. Co., (1907) 151 Fed. 545, 81 C. C. A. 61.

Reliquidation at increased rate. - Under this section it has been held that, within one year after entry, the duties may be reliquidated at a higher rate, though they may have been paid and the merchandise have been withdrawn for consumption. Louisville Pillow Co. v. U. S., (C. C. A. 1906) 144 Fed. 386.

Reliquidation after protest. This prohi bition does not apply where a protest has been filed, even though it has been sustained, and is no longer pending. Gulbenkian t. Stranahan, (1907) 158 Fed. 836; Kendall v. Lyman, (1908) 161 Fed. 652.

Clerical errors. - - See under this title, vol. 2, p. 634, sec. 24.

ceedings were barred, under R. S. sec. 1047 (3 Fed. Stat. Annot. 100, 4 Fed. Stat. Annot. 465) and this section, which prescribe, respectively, (1) that proceedings for forfeiture shall be brought within five years after the forfeiture accrued, provided the offender or the property shall, within the same period, be found within the United States; and (2) that proceedings for forfeiture accruing under the customs revenue laws shall be commenced within three years after the forfeiture accrued, provided the time of the absence from the United States of the person