CNITED STAtES V. 2,117 BtSHELS OF MALT. 231 �suggested, the argument based upon a previous course of practice would certainly be entitled to weight. But the court is compelled to administer the law in the Btrictness of its letter and true meaning, and it often happens that iii caSes of this character equitable con- siderations, which mighi induce an officerHaving the freedom of dis- cretion to grant relief, must be disregarded by the court. If the deduction of 2|- per cent, in the infoice in this case was illegal, the court must so declare it, and any previous recognition of it by cus- toms officers cannot make it legal. The government is not bound by any unauthorized action of its officers ; and when the court is called upon to determine the validity of a proceeding, such as that in ques- tion here, the only test is, is the act complained of legal? If it is not, then no recognition or sanction of it by subordinate officers can legalize it. Moreover, it may be the fact that the invoice in this case was passed without objection, beeause the consular agent and the collector supposed that the deduction for dust was one allowed to the consignee of the malt. �But it is still insisted that there was no design on the part of the claimant to evade the payment of duty — no intent to defraud the government ; and therefore that his property is not liable to forieit- ure. It is true that section 2839 appears to make such design or intent a prerequisite to the right of forfeiture. But the case covered by that section is one where the property is not invoiced according to the actual cost thereof at the place of exportation, and that is not quite the question here involved. The question here is one that touches the importer's right to make a deduction in the invoice from the cost or market value bi the property, after such cost or market value has been truly stated in the invoice; and I regard the caseas falling rather within section 2864,, and particularly within that part of the section which declares that— - �" If any owner, consignee, or agent o£ any merchandise shall knowingly make * * * an entry thereof by means of * * * any invoice which does not contain a true statement of all the particulars hereinbefore required,
- * such merchandise * * * shall be forfeited."
�Among the particulars before required is the one relating to draw- backs and discounts, as provided by section 2854, and so the question would be did the claimant knowingly make an entry of this malt by means of an invoice which did not contain a true statement of all the particulars or faets required by law. It is true that section 2864 provides for the case of an entry by means of a false invoice, or false certificate of a consul ; but it is not, as I understand, so limited in its ��� �
