Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/243

UNITED STATKS V. 2,117 BUSHBLS OP MALT. 229 �brancn of it, is made to rest ujpon section 2864 of the Revised Stat- utes, which provides that — �"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 certifieate of a consul, vice-consul, or commercial agent, or of any invoice which does not cotitain a true statement of all the particulars hereinbefore required, or by means of any other false or fraudaient document or paper, or of any other false or fraudulent practice or appliance whatsoever, such mer- chandise, or the value thereof, shall be forfeited." �And it is argued that the violation of this statute does not necessarily involve moral turpitude or actual intentional fraud. �On the contrary, counsel for the claimant contends that there can be no forfeiture unless there was actual fraud, and he cites as the section of the statute under which this prosecution must proceed, if at all, section 2839 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that — �" If any merchandise of which entry has been made in the oflSce of a collector is not invoiced according to the actual cost thereof at the place of exporta- tion, 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." �Upon careful consideration of the provisions of section 2854, 1 am constrained to construe it, in its applicaiion to this case, as meaning that the invoice could contain no discounts or drawbacks but such as were actually allowed to the purchaser of the property in his transaction with the seller, or as were expressly allowed by law. No other construction seems consistent with the purpose of the entire statute on the subject, which necessarily is very stringent iri all its details. This section cannot mean a discount or drawback allowed only by the owner or importer of the property, because that would throw the door open for any discounts or drawbacks, however illegit- imate, which he alone might from self-interest, or for any other cause, sei fit to insert in the invoice. Nor do I think it is intended by tMs section to give to the consular agent or to the collector of a port the power to allow any drawback or discount irrespective of statutory permission. The construction which I place upon the statute appears to be a reasonable one; for if, for example, in the purchase of such an article as malt, the parties, in good faith, agree that a certain price should be paid for it by the purchaser, less a certain percentage to be deducted for dust, and the purchaser thus has the benefit of the deduction, the discount or drawback is one that enters iuto the transaction as a matter of mutual interest to the parties, and may well be recognized as such in the invoice that is produced to the con- sular agent. Then, if, apart from any agreement bstween the shipper ��� �