« 이전계속 »
Opinion of the Court.
made as to the point of time of the valuation, and the importer paid the consequent excess of duties. The government contended that this was voluntary. But this court said:
“ This addition and consequent payment of the higher duties were so far from voluntary in him that he accompanied them with remonstrances against being thus coerced to do the act in order to escape a greater evil, and accompanied the payment with a protest against the legality of the course pursued towards him.
“Now, it can hardly be meant in this class of cases that to make a payment involuntary it should be by actual violence or any physical duress. It suffices if the payment is caused on the one part by an illegal demand and made on the other part reluctantly and in consequence of that illegality, and without being able to regain possession of his property except by submitting to the payment.
“All these requisites existed here. We have already decided that the demand for such an increased appraisal was illegal. The appraisement itself as made was illegal. The raising of the invoice was thus caused by these illegalities in order to escape a greater burden in the penalty. The payment of the increased duties thus caused was wrongfully imposed on the importer, and was submitted to merely as a choice of evils.
“He was unwilling to pay either the excess of duty or the penalty, and must be considered, therefore, as forced into one or the other by the collector colore officii through the invalid and illegal course pursued in having the appraisal made of the value of the wrong period.
“The money was thus obtained by a moral duress not justified by law, and which was not submitted to by the importer except to regain possession of his property already withheld from him on grounds manifestly wrong. Indeed, it seems sufficient to sustain the action whether under the act of February 26, 1845, [Rev. Stat. S 3011,) or under principles of the common law, if the duties exacted were not legal, and were demanded and were paid under protest.”
In that case, it is true, the fact that the importer was not
Opinion of the Court.
able to get possession of his goods without making the payment complained of, was referred to by the court as an important circumstance; but it was not stated to be an indispensable circumstance. The ultimate fact, of which that was an ingredient in the particular case, was the moral duress not justified by law. When such duress is exerted under circumstances sufficient to influence the apprehensions and conduct of a prudent business man, payment of money wrongfully induced thereby ought not to be regarded as voluntary. But the circumstances of the case are always to be taken into consideration. When the duress has been exerted by one clothed with official authority, or exercising a public employment, less evidence of compulsion or pressure is required, -as where an officer exacts illegal fees, or a common carrier excessive charges. But the principle is applicable in all cases according to the nature and exigency of each. In Swift Co. v. United States, 111 U. S. 22, the plaintiffs, who were manufacturers of matches, and furnished their own dies for the stamps used by them, and were thereby entitled to a commission of ten per cent on the price of such stamps, accepted for a long period their commissions in stamps, (which, of course, were worth to them only ninety cents to the dollar,) and they did this because the Treasury Department would pay in no other man
We held that the apprehension of being stopped in their business by non-compliance with the Treasury regulation was a sufficient moral duress to make their payments involuntary. Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the opinion of the court, said : “ The question is whether the receipts, agreements, accounts and settlements made in pursuance of that demand of necessity were voluntary in such sense as to preclude the appellant from subsequently insisting on its statutory right. We cannot hesitate to answer that question in the negative. The parties were not on equal terms. The appellant had no choice. The only alternative was to submit to an illegal exaction, or discontinue its business. It was in the power of the officers of the law, and could only do as they required. Money paid, or rather value parted with under such pressure, has never been regarded as a voluntary act within the mean
Opinion of the Court.
ing of the maxim volenti non fit injuria.” The cases referred to by Justice Matthews abundantly support the position taken, and need not be repeated here. In our judgment the payment of money to an official, as in the present case, to avoid an onerous penalty, though the imposition of that penalty might have been illegal, was sufficient to make the payment an involuntary one. It is true that the thing done under compulsion in this case was the insertion of the additional charges upon the entries and invoices; but that necessarily involved the payment of the increased duties caused thereby, and in effect amounts to the same thing as an involuntary payment.
But it is contended that the act of the appraiser in making, or requiring to be made, the additional charges for transportation and labor was final and conclusive, and cannot be made the subject of inquiry. It is undoubtedly the general rule that the valuation of merchandise made by the appraiser, unappealed from to merchant appraisers, is conclusive. But whilst this is the general rule, it is subject to the qualification that if the appraiser proceed upon a wrong principle, contrary to law, and this be made to appear, his appraisement is not unimpeachable. This qualification applies to the acts of many other officials charged with duties of a similar character, such as assessors of the value of property for taxation, commissioners for appraising lands taken for improvements, or damages sustained by owners of land and the like. What is complained of in the present case is, that the plaintiffs were required to add to the market value of the goods at the places from which they were exported transportation charges and expenses for labor which were never incurred. If that complaint is well founded, such additions cannot be maintained; for whilst the appraisers are not limited to the actual cost of articles exported, but may place upon them their market value at the places from which they were imported, and their estimate of that market value is conclusive, they could not, whilst the law required the addition to that market value of additional charges of transportation, &c., exercise any discretion as to those charges — but were confined to the actual cost thereof when
Opinion of the Court.
such cost could be shown. It was “cost," not "value," which was required in that part of the estimate of dutiable values. The sections of the Revised Statutes which regulated this matter in 1881 and 1882, when the transactions involved in the present suit took place, were SS 2906 and 2907, the latter of which was repealed by the act of March 3d, 1883. 22 Stat. 523.
Section 2906, which is still in force, declares that “when an ad valorem rate of duty is imposed on any imported merchandise, or when the duty imposed shall be regulated by, or directed to be estimated or based upon, the value of the square yard, or of any specified quantity or parcel of such merchandise, the collector within whose district the same shall be imported or entered shall cause the actual market value, or wholesale price thereof, at the period of the exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country from which the same has been imported, to be appraised, and such appraised value shall be considered the value upon which duty shall be assessed."
Section 2907 declared that, “in determining the dutiable value of merchandise, there shall be added to the cost, or to the actual wholesale price or general market value at the time of exportation in the principal markets of the country from whence the same has been imported into the United States, the cost of transportation, shipment and transhipment, with all the expenses included, from the place of growth, production or manufacture, whether by land or water, to the vessel in which shipment is made to the United States; the value of the sack, box, or covering of any kind in which such merchandise is contained ; commission at the usual rates, but in no case less than two and a half percentum ; and brokerage, export duty, and all other actual or usual charges for putting up, preparing and packing for transportation or shipment. All charges of a general character incurred in the purchase of a general invoice shall be distributed pro rata among all parts of such invoice; and every part thereof charged with duties, based on value, shall be advanced according to its proportion, and all wines or other articles paying specific duty by grades
Opinion of the Court.
shall be graded and pay duty according to the actual value so determined."
Now, whilst under the first of these sections (2906) the estimate of the market value of the goods, made by the appraiser, is in general unimpeachable, it is plain that the items to be added to that value under $ 2907 did not depend upon estimation, but upon the actual truth of the case, namely, the cost of transportation, shipment, &c., to the vessel in which shipment is made. This cost may be something; it may be nothing. In the present case the appraiser required fifty per cent of the market value of the goods to be added as cost of transportation. The plaintiffs disputed this item. Evidence was gone into on the subject, and the matter was left fairly to the jury. The only question for us to determine is, whether the matter was open to evidence, and could lawfully be left to the consideration of the jury; or whether the determination of the appraiser on this subject was conclusive. We think with the court below that this was a question open for examination. In Oberteuffer v. Robertson, 116 U. S. 499, we decided that since the act of 1883, repealing $ 2907 of the Revised Statutes, it is not lawful for the appraiser to add to the market price of the goods the cost or value of the cartons or boxes in which they are packed, either by themselves, or as part of the market value. In the principle involved that case is similar to the present. If since the repeal of $ 2907 the appraiser cannot lawfully add the cost of packing boxes to the appraised value to the goods, before such repeal he could not lawfully add more than that cost; and if he did, it was a matter for examination and correction. To the same effect is the case of Badger v. Cusimano, 130 U. S. 39, where the collector caused an appraisement to be made in which a portion of the charges for packing and transportation of the goods imported was deducted from that category and added to the invoice value of the goods themselves. We held that, in the absence of fraud on the part of the importer, this could not lawfully be done, and that such an appraisement is not lawful or conclusive.
We are satisfied, not only on the authority of these cases,