Summary

Samuel Blatchford United States v. Auffmordt — Opinion of the Court

In the second form of oath, the oath is that the oath contains 'a just and faithful account of the actual cost.' In the third form of oath, the oath is that the goods were not actually bought by the importer or consignee, or by his agent, in the ordinary mode of bargain and sale, but that nevertheless the invoice 'contains a just and faithful valuation of the same, at their fair market value' at the place of procurement.
Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford United States v. Auffmordt — Opinion of the Court

Assuming that the language of section 2864, declaring that the merchandise or its value shall be forfeited, would authorize a suit in personam, without a seizure of the merchandise, and also assuming that the suit for a forfeiture of the value may be brought against the owner, consignee, or agent, the question for determination is whether the provision in section 2864, for a forfeiture of the value, is superseded by the enactment of section 12 of the act of June 22, 1874, which provides only for a forfeiture of the merchandise, and does not provide for any forfeiture of its value.
Source: Wikisource

Samuel Blatchford United States v. Auffmordt — Opinion of the Court

It is quite clear, from the above provisions, that, where imported goods are the property of their manufacturer, the invoice need only state the fair market value of the goods at the place of manufacture, and it need not state 'the actual cost thereof at the place of exportation.' Therefore an invoice ofg oods which belong to their manufacturer is not, nor is an entry of such goods, within the purview of section 2839, so as to make the person entering them with design to evade payment of duty liable to a forfeiture of their value.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature