Bollinger's Champagne/Opinion of the Court

by Samuel Nelson

United States Supreme Court

70 U.S. 560

Bollinger's Champagne

It will be perceived that the duty imposed by the Tariff Act of June 30th, 1864, is both specific and ad valorem; and, according to the proviso, as it respects champagne or sparkling wines, in bottles, of a given quantity in each, not less than six dollars per dozen, or six dollars per two dozen, as may be the quantity, shall be imposed as the duty. The effect of the proviso is, that, if the specific duty upon the gallon, and the ad valorem duty on the appraised value, in the aggregate, as it respects the article of champagne or sparkling wines, as the case may be, in bottles, exceed the sum of six dollars per dozen, or two dozen, the rate thus estimated will be the duty imposed; but if the rate falls under the sum of six dollars, then, by virtue of the proviso, not less than that sum shall be exacted.

It will be observed that, in order to carry into effect this act, an appraisal at the customs, in the case of the specific duty on the gallon, is as essential as the appraisal in the case of an ad valorem duty. For the specific duty is apportioned according to the value of the article; wines valued at not over fifty cents per gallon, pay twenty cents per gallon; valued at over fifty and not over one dollar per gallon, fifty cents specific duty, and so on.

Now, the District Court charged in effect that, as the specific and ad valorem duty, in the aggregate, if properly appraised and estimated as appraised on the trial, was under six dollars per dozen, no higher duties would have been charged by the government than that sum; the sum which was paid on the entry to the collector.

The principle involved in the ruling is, that no matter how much fraud and imposition may have been practised upon the officers of the customs, or, however false may have been the invoice, or other papers of the shipment, and oath of the importer or agent upon which the entry of the goods is made, if it turns out in the result, that the value of duty required by law has been paid, no penalty attaches.

We cannot agree to this construction of the act of 1863, which prescribes this penalty, nor of the act of 1864 imposing the duty. The penalty of forfeiture is annexed to the act of making an entry knowingly by means of false invoices, or false certificate of the consul, or of any other invoice which contains an undervaluation, or by means of any other false or fraudulent documents or papers. No doubt one of the objects of the provision is to secure to the government the duties imposed by the statute, but another is, to protect the officers against imposition and fraud by the importer or agent, and to inculcate and enforce good faith and honest dealing with those officers while engaged in the execution of their duties.

Besides, under this provision of the act of 1864, the result which is assumed in the instruction to the jury, as the only material fact in disposing of the case, is one to be ascertained by the officers of the customs, and this, after the entry of the goods upon the invoice duly verified, and an appraisal and estimate of the amount of the duties. This is the way prescribed by the law to determine whether or not the duties in the aggregate fall under the rate of six dollars per dozen bottles. The reason, therefore, for integrity in all the documents and papers of the shipment, and fair dealing on the part of the importers or their agent, is as applicable to the present case as to any other importation and entry.

We think that the court below erred, and that the judgment should be

REVERSED.

Notes