What inspection laws do and what do not "approximate" those of the United States is necessarily a mixed question of law and fact. As such, it must primarily be determined for their own guidance by the proper officers of that Department of the Government charged with the administration of these navigation laws. If their determination should be controverted by the vessel owners, the issue is one for judicial determination like any other disputed fact. Speaking generally, the term "approximation" is not synonymous with identity, but indicates merely substantial and material accord. Trivial and unsubstantial differences should be disregarded, as also requirements in the foreign laws additional to and beyond our own. The phrase also contemplates "approximation" not at the date when it was added to the law, to wit, 1902, but approximation from time to time as the inspections and voyages occur. Questions as to the proper issuance of foreign certificates of inspection; as to whether such foreign countries accord to the steam vessels of the United States visiting those countries the same privileges as are offered in the amendment of 1902 to steam vessels of those countries visiting the United States; as to whether vessels claiming the privilege of the Secretary of Commerce under the amendment of 1906 are those operating upon regularly established lines; and as to whether such vessels will be regu larly inspected by the authorities of their home government before they next return to a port of the United States all these are of a similar nature and should be similarly resolved. Respectfully, To the PRESIDENT. 83152°-VOL 30—13- 29 T. W. GREGORY, RELIQUIDATION OF ENTRIES. The Secretary of the Treasury has authority under section 25 of the Tariff Act of August 27, 1894 (28 Stat. 552), to direct reliquidation of certain entries covering imported merchandise, upon the basis of the rate of exchange in this country for the foreign currency specified in the invoice when the value of such currency at the prevailing rate is at least 10 per cent less than the proclaimed value. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 10, 1915, in which you request my opinion on the following question: You state that the attorneys for certain importers have requested you to reliquidate under section 25 of the Tariff Act of August 27, 1894, certain entries of goods made at New York in November and December, 1914, and January and February, 1915. These entries cover merchandise imported from Austria-Hungary on invoices certified at various dates running from October 24, 1914, to January 25, 1915, the invoice value being expressed in Austrian crowns. The reliquidation is requested upon the basis of the rate of exchange for such currency quoted in New York on the dates when the invoices were certified. You state that the collector of customs at New York has reported that at the respective times of entry the currency of these invoices was converted into money of the United States and the entries were liquidated upon the basis of $0.203 for the Austrian crown, being the value proclaimed by the Secretary of the Treasury in T. D. 34799 and T. D. 35028, for the quarters beginning October 1, 1914, and January 1, 1915, respectively. It appears that evidence has been produced for the purpose of satisfying you that the actual exchange value in New York of the Austrian crown on the respective dates of the certified invoices was at least 10 per cent less than the proclaimed value. You request my opinion whether you are authorized to direct a reliquidation of the entries under consideration upon the basis of the rates of exchange in this country on the foreign currency specified in the invoice, when the value of such currency at the prevailing rate of exchange is at least 10 per cent less than the proclaimed value. The policy of Congress and our system of taxation as to ad valorem duties as shown in the various customs acts is to assess duties on imports at their actual cost, or market value, and for this purpose invoices in the currency of the country of export are required. The foreign market value or cost so stated in terms of the foreign currency must ultimately be expressed in terms of money of account of the United States; and, from the beginning, Congress has given consideration to the standard or rate at which the conversion should be made from one currency into the other. The value in United States currency of the total amount of foreign money representing the foreign market value of the goods imported is the value upon which the importer must pay the duty when the entries of the goods are liquidated in the United States. As was said in United States v. Whitridge (1905), 197 U. S. 135, p. 142: 66* * * we start with the consideration that to an ad valorem tax it must be an object to ascertain the true value of the thing taxed at the time as of which it is taxed, and that the invoice price is referred to only to that end. The history of the statutes shows a series of continually closer approximations to it "From the origin of the Government down to the passage of section 25 of the Tariff Act of August 27, 1894 (28 Stat. 552), the value of foreign standard coins, for the purpose of liquidating duties, was based upon their intrinsic or pure metal value, as expressed in the money of account of the United States. The method adopted previous to 1873 was by special enactment fixing the value as to certain specified coins, and by Treasury regulations as to nonenumerated coins to ascertain 'as near as may be the intrinsic value United States v. J. Allston Newhall & Co., 1899 (91 Fed. 525, 528). See also act of July 31, 1789 (1 Stat. 29); act of August 4, 1790 (1 Stat. 145, 167); act of March 2, 1799 (1 Stat. 627, 673); act of March 3, 1801 (2 Stat. 121); act of June 28, 1834 (4 Stat. 700); act of July 27, 1842 (5 Stat. 496); act of March 3, 1843 (5 Stat. 625); act of May 22, 1846 (9 Stat. 14). * By the act of March 3, 1873 (17 Stat. 602), now R. S. 3564, instead of separate enactments for each coin, there was substituted a general law that "the value of foreign coin as expressed in the money of account of the United States shall be that of the pure metal of such coin of standard value * estimated annually by the Director of the Mint, and be proclaimed on the first day of January by the Secretary of the Treasury." This act was amended October 21, 1890 (26 Stat. 624), by requiring the estimate by the Director of the Mint and the proclamation by the Secretary to be made quarterly instead of annually. Under this act the value as estimated and proclaimed has the force of a statute. Collector v. Richards, 23 Wall. 246; Cramer v. Arthur, 102 U. S. 612; Hadden v. Merritt, 115 U. S. 25; United States v. Klingenberg, 153 U. S. 93. It was later recognized, however, by Congress that the value of the money or currency of a foreign country might, in fact, differ from the value of the pure metallic contents of such money; that, in fact, certain coins in current use in foreign countries were token coins, having an arbitrary value, as a fractional currency, circulating at a certain fixed rate as compared with the standard coin of the country. It was also recognized that the value of the foreign currency or money might be affected by general commercial, financial, or business conditions, and might at times vary from the value of the pure metallic contents. Accordingly, the Tariff Act of August 27, 1894 (c. 349, sec. 25, 28 Stat. 509, 552), provided as follows: "That the value of foreign coin as expressed in the money of account of the United States shall be that of the pure metal of such coin of standard value; and the values of the standard coins in circulation of the various nations of the world shall be estimated quarterly by the Director of the Mint, and be proclaimed by the Secretary of the Treasury immediately after the passage of this act and thereafter quarterly on the first day of January, April, July, and October in each year. And the values so proclaimed shall be followed in estimating the value of all foreign merchandise exported to the United States during the quarter for which the value is proclaimed, and the date of the consular certification of any invoice shall, for the purposes of this section, be considered the date of exportation: Provided, That the Secretary of the Treasury may order the reliquidation of any entry at a different value, whenever satisfactory evidence shall be produced to him showing that the value in United States currency of the foreign money specified in the invoice was, at the date of certification, at least ten per centum more or less than the value proclaimed during the quarter in which the consular certification occurred." This section, down to the proviso, was substantially a reenactment of the previous law. In construing this proviso, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Whitridge (1905), 197 U. S. 135, held that when the Secretary of the Treasury had satisfactory evidence that the value of the Indian rupee was at least 10 per cent more than the value proclaimed, "he is authorized to order a reliquidation in order to make the value in United States currency correspond with the actual value of the goods"; and it was held that the words in the proviso, "value in United States currency of the foreign money specified in the invoice," on the basis of which the Secretary might reliquidate, meant its value either as a fraction of the English pound or its exchange market value, and not value of the pure metallic contents of the foreign money. While the court strictly confined its decision to the facts of the case before it, saying (p. 144): "But, as in this case, the exchange value and the value as a fraction of a pound were the same, it does not matter to our decision whether we say that in such circumstances the action of the Secretary was conclusive or say that it was right," it is clear that it recognized the authority of the Secretary to accept the exchange value of the rupee as his basis of reliquidation, on such evidence as he found satisfactory. In that case the reliquidation was made on the basis of the value of the rupee as stated in the consular certificate; that is, the exchange value of the rupee at the date of the invoice (which by the statute was made the |