Skip to main content
· 12/5/1898

United States v. Ranlett & Stone

Citations

  • 172 U.S. 133
  • 19 S. Ct. 114
  • 43 L. Ed. 393
  • 1898 U.S. LEXIS 1644

Syllabus

<p>Section 7 of the act of February 8, 1875, c. 36, 18 Stat. 307, 30S, was repealed by the tariff acts of 1883 and of 1890.</p> <p>When a later statute is a complete revision of the subject to which the earlier statute related, and the new legislation was manifestly intended as a substitute for the former legislation, the prior act must be held to have been repealed.</p> <p>When hags are imported, part of which are returned hags of American manufacture and part foreign, if the appraiser, after examination, decides that the goods are not as described, his judgment must stand unless reversed.</p> <p>Section 2901, Rev. Stat., was intended for the benefit of the Government, and is not mandatory.</p> <p>Where merchandise, liable in large part to duty, is entered as exempt therefrom, the collector has the right to assume that the mingling was intentional and with design to evade the revenue laws; and it devolves upon the importer to show what part of the whole he contends should not he taxed.</p> <p>In the light of the rulings of the Treasury Department, and the special circumstances of the case, the court is not disposed to hold that if the proportion of dutiable bags sufficiently appeared or might reasonably have been ascertained, the Circuit Court could not have adjudged a recovery of that proportion, or directed a reliquidation.</p> <p>In view of the testimony, and considering that the statute was not strictly pursued in the examination (though the court perceives no reason to doubt the faithfulness of the officials in the discharge of their duties), and the difficulties in the way of determining the make of the hags disclosed by*the evidence, and bearing in mind that the taxation of so many of the bags as were of American manufacture operated as a penalty in spite of the concession that no fraud on the revenue was intended, the court thinks it unnecessary to remand the cause for another hearing, and that the ends of justice will be best subserved by directing a decre

Judges: Fuller, After Stating the Case

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.