United States v. Auffmordt

122 U.S. 197 (1887)

UNITED STATES
v.
AUFFMORDT.

Supreme Court of United States.

Argued April 26, 1887. Decided May 27, 1887. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

Mr. Solicitor General for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Charles M. Da Costa for defendants in error.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD, after stating the case as above reported, delivered the opinion of the court.

The two sections of the Revised Statutes upon which the United States base their right of recovery in the case are §§ 2839 and 2864. Section 2839 was originally enacted as part of § 66 of the act of March 2, 1799, c. 22, 1 Stat. 677, and reads as follows: "SEC. 2839. If any merchandise, of which entry has been made in the office of a collector, is not invoiced according to the actual cost thereof at the place of exportation with design to evade payment of duty, all such merchandise, or the value thereof, to be recovered of the person making entry, shall be forfeited."

Section 2864 was originally enacted as part of § 1 of the act of March 3, 1863, c. 76, 12 Stat. 738, and reads as follows: "SEC. 2864. If any owner, consignee, or agent of any merchandise shall knowingly make, or attempt to make, an entry thereof by means of any false invoice, or false certificate of a consul, vice-consul, or commercial agent, or of any invoice which does not contain a true statement of all the particulars hereinbefore required, or by means of any other false or fraudulent document or paper, or of any other false or fraudulent practice or appliance whatsoever, such merchandise, or the value thereof, shall be forfeited."

The bill of exceptions contains the following statement as to the proceedings after the above ruling of the court: The plaintiffs asked leave to prove, successively, that items contained in the invoices mentioned in the complaint and bill of particulars were undervalued, within the meaning of the last clause of § 12 of the act of June 22, 1874, which reads as follows: "Anything contained in any act which provides for the forfeiture or confiscation of an entire invoice in consequence of any item or items contained in the same being undervalued, be, and the same is hereby, repealed;" that the defendants, being consignees of the merchandise mentioned in the complaint, knowingly made entries thereof by means of false invoices; that the defendants, being agents of the merchandise mentioned in the complaint, knowingly made entry thereof by means of false invoices; that the defendants, being consignees of the merchandise mentioned in the complaint, knowingly made entry thereof by means of invoices which did not contain a true statement of the particulars required in that part of the act of March 3, 1863, preceding the provision of the act which was reënacted as § 2864 of the Revised Statutes; that the defendants being agents of the merchandise mentioned in the complaint, knowingly made entry thereof by means of invoices which did not contain a true statement of the particulars required in that part of the act of March 3, 1863, preceding the provision of the act which was reënacted as § 2864 of the Revised Statutes; that the defendants, being the consignees of the merchandise mentioned in the complaint, knowingly made entry thereof by means of false and fraudulent documents and papers; and that the defendants, being the agents of the merchandise mentioned in the complaint, knowingly made entry thereof by means of false and fraudulent documents and papers. These requests being successively denied, the plaintiffs excepted to each refusal. The jury under direction of the court, found a verdict for the defendants, to which direction the plaintiffs excepted. After a judgment for the defendants, the plaintiffs took the case to the Circuit Court by a writ of error, where the judgment was affirmed, and they have brought the case to this court by a writ of error.

The main contentions on the part of the defendants are, that § 2839 relates only to purchased goods, and not to consigned goods, and that § 2864 is superseded by § 12 of the act of June 22, 1874, c. 391, 18 Stat. 188. These contentions were sustained by the District Court in its opinion.

Section 2839 provides for the forfeiture of merchandise, or the value thereof, "to be recovered of the person making entry," where the merchandise is "not invoiced according to the actual cost thereof at the place of exportation, with design to evade payment of duty." This section, originally enacted in 1799, is applicable only to goods which are required to be invoiced according to their actual cost at the place of exportation. Alfonso v. United States, 2 Story, 421, 429, 432. By § 2841 of the Revised Statutes, originally § 4 of the act of March 1, 1823, c. 21, 3 Stat. 730, 732, forms of oaths on the entry of goods are prescribed, one for the "consignee, importer, or agent," one for the "owner in cases where merchandise has been actually purchased," and a third for the "manufacturer or owner in cases where merchandise has not been actually purchased." In the first form of oath, the oath is, that the invoice "exhibits the actual cost, (if purchased,) or fair market value, (if otherwise obtained,)" at the time and place of procurement. In the second form of oath, the oath is, that the oath contains "a just and faithful account of the actual cost." In the third form of oath, the oath is, that the goods were not actually bought by the importer or consignee, or by his agent, in the ordinary mode of bargain and sale, but that nevertheless the invoice "contains a just and faithful valuation of the same, at their fair market value" at the place of procurement.

Section 2845, originally § 8 of the act of March 1, 1823, c. 21, 3 Stat. 733, provides that "no merchandise subject to ad valorem duty, belonging to a person not residing at the time in the United States, who has not acquired the same in the ordinary mode of bargain and sale, or belonging to the manufacturer, in whole or in part, of the same, shall be admitted to entry, unless the invoice thereof is verified by the oath of the owner or of one of the owners, ... certifying that the invoice contains a true and faithful account of the merchandise, at its fair market value, at the time and place when and where the same was procured or manufactured, as the case may be."

Section 2854, originally a part of § 1 of the act of March 3, 1863, c. 76, 12 Stat. 737, provides as follows: "All such invoices" (that is, all invoices of merchandise imported from any foreign country) "shall, at or before the shipment of the merchandise, be produced to the consul, vice-consul, or commercial agent of the United States nearest the place of shipment, for the use of the United States, and shall have indorsed thereon, when so produced, a declaration signed by the purchaser, manufacturer, owner, or agent, setting forth that the invoice is in all respects true; that it contains, if the merchandise mentioned therein is subject to ad valorem duty, and was obtained by purchase, a true and full statement of the time when and the place where the same was purchased, and the actual cost thereof, and of all charges thereon; and that no discounts, bounties, or drawbacks are contained in the invoice but such as have actually been allowed thereon; and when obtained in any other manner than by purchase, the actual market value thereof at the time and place when and where the same was procured or manufactured; and, if subject to specific duty, the actual quantity thereof; and that no different invoice of the merchandise, mentioned in the invoice so produced, has been or will be furnished to any one. If the merchandise was actually purchased, the declaration shall also contain a statement that the currency in which such invoice is made out is the currency which was actually paid for the merchandise by the purchaser."

It is quite clear, from the above provisions, that, where imported goods are the property of their manufacturer, the invoice need only state the fair market value of the goods at the place of manufacture, and it need not state "the actual cost thereof at the place of exportation." Therefore, an invoice of goods which belong to their manufacturer is not, nor is an entry of such goods, within the purview of § 2839, so as to make the person entering them with design to evade payment of duty liable to a forfeiture of their value.

The most serious question arises in respect to § 2864, which is alleged to have been superseded by § 12 of the act of June 22, 1874. The two statutes are here placed in parallel columns:

Section 2864, Revised Statutes,        Section 12 of the Act of June
(2d ed).                               22, 1874.
"If any owner, consignee, or          "That any owner, importer,
agent of any merchandise shall        consignee, agent, or other person
knowingly make, or attempt            who shall, with intent to
to make, an entry thereof by          defraud the revenue, make, or
means of any false invoice, or        attempt to make, any entry
false certificate of a consul,        of imported merchandise, by
vice-consul, or commercial            means of any fraudulent or
agent, or of any invoice which        false invoice, affidavit, letter,
does not contain a true statement     or paper, or by means of any
of all the particulars                false statement, written or
hereinbefore required, or by          verbal, or who shall be guilty
means of any other false or           of any wilful act or omission
fraudulent document or paper,         by means whereof the United
or of any other false or fraudulent   States shall be deprived of the
practice or appliance                 lawful duties, or any portion
whatsoever, such merchandise          thereof, accruing upon the merchandise,
or the value thereof shall be         or any portion thereof,
forfeited."                           embraced or referred to in

such invoice, affidavit, letter,
paper, or statement, or affected
by such act or omission, shall,
for each offence, be fined in any
sum not exceeding five thousand
dollars nor less than fifty
dollars, or be imprisoned for
any time not exceeding two
years, or both; and, in addition
to such fine, such merchandise
shall be forfeited; which forfeiture
shall only apply to the
whole of the merchandise in
the case or package containing
the particular article or articles
of merchandise to which said
fraud or alleged fraud relates;
and anything contained in any
act which provides for the forfeiture
or confiscation of an
entire invoice in consequence
of any item or items contained
in the same being undervalued,
be, and the same is
hereby, repealed."

Assuming that the language of § 2864, declaring that the merchandise or its value shall be forfeited, would authorize a suit in personam, without a seizure of the merchandise, and also assuming that the suit for a forfeiture of the value may be brought against the owner, consignee, or agent, the question for determination is, whether the provision in § 2864, for a forfeiture of the value, is superseded by the enactment of § 12 of the act of June 22, 1874, which provides only for a forfeiture of the merchandise, and does not provide for any forfeiture of its value.

Section 13 of the act of June 22, 1874, provides that any merchandise entered by any person violating § 12, but not subject to forfeiture under that section, may, while owned by him or while in his possession, "to double the amount claimed, be taken by the collector and held as security for the payment of any fine or fines incurred as aforesaid." Section 14 provides that the omission, without intent thereby to defraud the revenue, to add, on entry, to the invoice, certain specified charges, shall not be a cause of forfeiture of the goods "or of the value thereof." Section 16 provides that, in suits to enforce the forfeiture of goods, "or to recover the value thereof," no fine, penalty, or forfeiture shall be imposed unless the jury shall find that the alleged acts were done with an actual intention to defraud the United States. Section 26 repeals all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of that act. There is not in the act any other repealing provision, except that contained in the concluding words of § 12, above quoted.

The act of June 22, 1874, was passed on the same day with the Revised Statutes, § 5595 of which declares that the Revised Statutes embrace the general and permanent statutes of the United States which were in force on the 1st day of December, 1873. Section 5601 declares that the enactment of the revision is not to affect or repeal any act of Congress passed since the 1st day of December, 1873; that all acts passed since that date are to have full effect, as if passed after the enactment of the revision; and that, so far as such acts vary from or conflict with any provision contained in the revision, they are to have effect as subsequent statutes, and as repealing any portion of the revision inconsistent therewith. The act of June 22, 1874, is, therefore, a subsequent statute to the Revised Statutes, and repeals any portion thereof which is inconsistent with such subsequent statute.

On a full review of the above-recited provisions of the act of June 22, 1874, and of its other provisions, it is apparent that, so far, at least, as the acts subject to the penalties denounced in § 2864 are concerned, they are entirely covered by the provisions of § 12 of the act of June 22, 1874. There is no act denounced by § 2864 that is not embraced, both as to person and character of act, by the provisions of § 12. The latter section adds, as a punishment for the offence, fine or imprisonment, or both, and a forfeiture of the merchandise, in addition to the fine. It leaves out a forfeiture of the value of the merchandise, and forfeiture of such value is inconsistent with the terms of § 12, and is, therefore, repealed by it. The absolute forfeiture of the merchandise, provided for by § 12, is inconsistent, also, with the alternative forfeiture of the merchandise or its value, provided for by § 2864. The provisions of the two statutes cannot stand together. Norris v. Crocker, 13 How. 429, 438; United States v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88, 92; Murdoch v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 617; United States v. Claflin, 97 U.S. 546, 552, 553; King v. Cornell, 106 U.S. 395, 396; Pana v. Bowler, 107 U.S. 529, 538.

The considerations covered by the foregoing views are so well discussed and enforced in the opinion of the District Judge in this case that it is not deemed necessary further to enlarge upon them.

Section 2864 of the Revised Statutes, when originally enacted on the 22d of June, 1874, did not contain the words "or the value thereof" after the words "such merchandise." By the act of February 18, 1875, c. 80, 18 Stat. 319, entitled "An Act to correct errors and to supply omissions in the Revised Statutes of the United States," and which act states "that, for the purpose of correcting errors and supplying omissions in the act entitled ``An Act to revise and consolidate the statutes of the United States in force on the first day of December, Anno Domini one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three,' so as to make the same truly express such laws, the following amendments are hereby made therein," it is provided as follows: "Section two thousand eight hundred and sixty-four is amended by inserting in the last line, after the word ``merchandise,' the words ``or the value thereof.'" Section two of the act directs the Secretary of State, "if practicable, to cause this act to be printed and bound in the volume of the Revised Statutes of the United States."

It is contended for the United States that this amendment to § 2864, made by the act of February 18, 1875, can be reasonably accounted for only upon the theory that, at the date it was made, which was after the passage of the act of June 22, 1874, c. 391, Congress regarded § 2864, as thus amended, as a valid existing law, particularly in respect to the amendment, and intended to declare that the value of the merchandise should be forfeited under § 2864, notwithstanding the passage of the act of June 22, 1874, c. 391. But we are of opinion that the amendment made by the act of February 18, 1875, did not have the effect contended for. Its sole object was to correct errors and supply omissions in the text of the Revised Statutes, as its title indicates, so as to make the same truly express the statutes in force on the 1st of December, 1873, and it made special reference to the printed volume of the Revised Statutes. It was in no respect new legislation, nor a new law enacted to take effect from the date of its passage, in such wise as to alter any enactment made since the passage of the Revised Statutes. The intention was to make § 2864 read as it ought to have read in the printed volume, in the shape in which it was in force on the 1st of December, 1873, as a part of § 1 of the act of March 3, 1863, c. 76, 12 Stat. 738. It left the act of June 22, 1874, c. 391, to have its full effect in respect to § 2864, in like manner as if the words "or the value thereof" had been contained in that section, in the printed volume of the Revised Statutes. There was a law in force on December 1, 1873, and subsequently thereto, down to June 22, 1874, authorizing a forfeiture of the value of merchandise for the causes stated in § 2864, and the fact that forfeitures of such value might have been incurred during the intervening period between December 1, 1873, and June 22, 1874, was a sufficient reason for the correction made in § 2864.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.