Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/132

124 PEDEEAIi REPORTER, �So in this case, the subsequent statement in the agreed case that wool fell at Eosario between the time of the purchase of the wool and the time of exportation, and that at the time and place of shipment the market value, excluding charges in 8uch port, was less than twelve cents per pound, cannpt affect the imposition of the duty by the collector in aecordance with the appraisal. See, also, Belcher v. Linn, 24 IIow. ^08 ; Schmaire v, Maxwell. 3 Bl. C. C. 408. �The plaintiff contends in this case that the appraisal was not legal or suffioient ; nevertheless, it was an actual appraise- ment, free from fraud, and in the exercise of the appraiser's best judgment and discretion, and the remedy was by an appeal. These considerations dispose of the "first," "sec- ond," "third" and "fifth" grounds of the plaintiff's protest and of the case. But there remains the "fourth" ground of pro- test, and, as the case bas been argued at length on that ground by the counsel for the plaintifï, it may be well that the court should state its conclusions upon that also. �The "fourth" ground of protest by the plaintiff is this: "The proviso in section 7 of the act of March 3, 1865, that the duty shall not be assessed upon an amount less than the invoice or entered value, does not apply to this import. Tùe act of March 2, 1867, in express terms repeals ail prior laws imposing duty on wools, and makes new classifications based on blood of sheep, and the rate of duty is lixed by the value at the last port of exportation, and exclusive of charges in such port." Now it is quite true that the act of March 2, 1867, above referred to, did provide that "in lieuof the dutiea now impose d by law on the articles mentioned and embraced in this section (§ 1 of the act) there shall be levied, collected and paid on ail unmanufactured wool, hair of the alpaca goat and other like animais imported from foreign countries, the duties hereinafter provided." But it should be kept in mind that the proviso of section 7 of the act of 186.5, that the duty shall not be assessed upon an amount less than the invoice or entered value, did not refer specifically to importations of wool, nor was it enacted in reference thereto alone, but it applied to "ail cases where the duty imposed by law shall be regu- ��� �