value of the merchandise and the advanced packing charges the collector assessed duty. It is the contention of the importer that the case of U. S. v. Spingarn (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., —; T. D. 34002) is decisive of this case. The collector has no power to appraise or place a value on the cost of packing. He must simply ascertain it and liquidate the entry accordingly. Assumably he did that under such evidence as was before him, but the evidence before us clearly shows that the cost of packing upon which the liquidation was made was excessive. The protest is therefore sustained and the collector directed to reliquidate the entry, assessing duty upon the packing charges as stated in the invoice.-Ab. 37271.

Appraisers' Returns.-Appraising officers in making returns of appraisement should not note items as disallowed, but should make specific notations of advance and state either the amount or percentage added.-Dept. Order (T. D. 34992).

The addition by the appraiser to make market value of an amount equal to items invoiced as "freight and consul fee" is not an appraisement of charges. U. S. v. Spingarn (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., -; T. D. 34002) distinguished.-T. D. 34569 (G. A. 7575).

Assessment of Duty on Charges.-Appraisers to advisorily return the value of charges. Duty to be assessed on the value of charges as determined by the collector. Additional duty under paragraph I does not accrue by reason of the addition of cost or charges by the collector. The costs and charges are not to be included in the entered or appraised value in determining the rate or amount of additional duty under paragraph I. The value of costs and charges are to be included in the dutiable value for the purpose of determining a rate of duty dependent on value. Appraisers should report specifically on the value of the merchandise per se. T. D. 34002 (Ct. Cust. Appls), cited.Dept. Order (T. D. 34274).

Dutiable Value.-In cases where an importer adds to make market value to meet advances made by the appraiser on similar goods pending reappraisement and the appraiser approves the entered value, duty can not be assessed on less than the entered and appraised value unless there is an appeal for reappraisement and the appeal is sustained.--Dept. Order (T. D. 34179).

Market Value.-Under paragraph K of section 3, tariff act of 1913, authorizing the appraiser to use "all reasonable ways and means" in his power to "ascertain, estimate, and appraise" the actual market value and wholesale price of dutiable merchandise at the time of its exportation to the United States, in the principal markets of the country whence the same has been imported, the appraiser is justified in arriving at his conclusion by deducting from the value of the merchandise at the port the shipping and freight charges from the place where the shipment originated-the principal market for such merchandise-to the port. Such action is not an appraisement of the freight and shipping charges, but a convenient method of finding the value at the place where the shipment originated.-U. S. v. Spingarn Bros. (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 2; T. D. 34002) distinguished.

Where both importer and appraiser arrived at the market value by deducting inland freight and shipping charges from the value at the foreign port, and a greater deduction was made by the importer than by the appraiser, such action resulting in a larger appraised than entered value, the additional duty provided by paragraph I of section 3, tariff act of 1913, was justly imposed.-U. S. v. Philips Co. (Ct. Cust. Appls.), T. D. 37110.

DECISIONS UNDER THE ACT OF 1909.

Clerical Error-Selling Commission.-The entry here asserts the item claimed as exempt was duitable. On the invoice the item is called a buying commission. This does not disclose manifest clerical error. When the ap

praiser examined the statement of the inspector that the item was a nondutiable buying commission, in connection with the fact that the charges were made by the seller of the goods and found the gross sum the dutiable value of the goods, the inquiry was concluded.-U. S. v. Brodie (Ct. Cust. Appls.), T. D. 35438; G. A. Ab. 37206 reversed.

It is here claimed that a nondutiable item was included in the entered value through clerical error. This error was held to be manifest and the protest sustained.-Ab. 37206; reversed in T. D. 35438 (Ct. Cust. Appls). supra. Commission-Duress.

DURESS.-The importers were constrained to include the commissions in dispute in the entered value of the merchandise; otherwise their entries would not have been received, but simply returned to them. This constituted duress. COMMISSIONS.--WHEN NONDUTIABLE. The shippers in the Vandegrift case were purchasing agents who bought the merchandise in foreign markets on cabled orders. The commissions charged for this service and included in the invoices were true nondutiable purchasing commissions in fact and in law.

FAILURE TO PROTEST DURESS.-In the Vandiver case the commissions were averred to be nondutiable in character, but no claim of duress in any form was made in the protest. The protestant was called upon to impeach the validity of the entries themselves and to notify the collector of the grounds of such impeachment, and failing in this the assessment must stand.—Vandiver v. U. S. (Ct. Cust. Appls.), T. D. 35327; Ab. 35946 (T. D. 34571) reversed and Ab. 35834 (T. D. 34548) affirmed.

The question here arises over the importation of certain woolen goods from Bradford, England, embraced in numerous invoices and entries These invoices include an item of commissions at 3 per cent, which, it is claimed by the importers, should be deducted from the total invoices and no duty assessed thereon for the reason that these commissions were paid to the agent of the purchaser as a commissionaire for purchasing the goods. Duty has been assessed upon the entered value, which includes the commissions, but the importers claim exemption for the items of commissions because compelled to make entry including such items, setting up duress in the protests. Protest overruled.-Ab. 35946 (T. D. 34571).

Protests overruled claiming that an item of commission should not have been included in the dutiable value of certain merchandise.-Ab. 35834 (T. D. 34548).

The importer may, in view of possible subsequent proceedings, register with his entry his claim as to the true valuation, and for the collector to refuse this privilege might be duress. But to constitute duress the proof must show a substantial right had been denied.

In the case here there is no evidence that the goods are ever sold in the open markets of the country of exportation at less than the price including the comission in controversy, and the requirement that this should be added to make market value was not to deprive the importer of any substantial right. The requirement, accordingly, did not constitute duress.-Batten & Co. v. U. S (Ct. Cust. Appls.), T. D. 34975; (G. A. Ab. 34856) T. D. 34201 affirmed.

It is here claimed that the importers were compelled by duress to write upon the entry in connection with the so-called item of commissions "add to make

market value" instead of "add 21 per cent commission." Protests overruled. Ab. 33616 (T. D. 33738) noted.-Ab. 34856 (T. D. 34201).

Jurisdiction of Appraiser Over Packing Charges.—It being the duty of the collector to fix the packing charges, any action of the appraiser relative thereto must be held to be either advisory or extra-official. The addition of packing charges, therefore, does not raise the per se value, and hence the provisions of subsection 7 of section 28 do not apply. U. S. v. Spingarn Bros. (5 Ct. Cust. Appls.), ; T. D. 34002).—T. D. 34726 (G. A. 7595).

Manifest Clerical Error.-There was nothing before the collector at the time of liquidation which would enable him to determine whether or not the item in question should or should not be included within the dutiable value of the merchandise, and in dealing with it there might be an error in judgment committed, but there could be no manifest clerical error. U. S. v. Nozaki Bros. (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 286; T. D. 34471).-U. S. v. Rice (Ct. Cust. Appls.), T. D. 34472; (G. A. Ab. 33927) T. D. 33816 reversed.

There was nothing before the appraiser at the time of appraisement nor was there anything before the collector at the time of liquidation indicating the character of these items that were allowed as nondutiable. There was no manifest clerical error for correction. Thomsen v. U. S. (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 69; T. D. 34100).-U. S. v. Nozaki Bros. (Ct. Cust. Appls.), T. D. 34471; (G. A. Ab. 33927) T. D. 33816 reversed.

U. S. v. Swedish Produce Co. (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 223; T. D. 33437) and U. S. v. Wyman (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 264; T. D. 33485) followed as to manifest clerical Protests sustained.-Ab. 33927 (T. D. 33816); reversed in T. D. 34471,

errors. supra.

Duress.-The importers had been warned that the entered value of their brierwood was lower than that of other importers, and that unless the value was advanced penalties for undervaluation would be exacted. The importers were by this warning required to do nothing more than the law itself obliged; they were subjected to no unlawful demand and consequently to no duress.— Colonial Import & Export Co. v. U. S. (Ct. Cust. Appls.), T. D. 34190; (G. A, Ab. 31821) T. D. 33304 affirmed.

It appears from the record that the goods were regularly appraised and liquidation had upon the appraised value. No appeal was taken to a single general appraiser or a board of three general appraisers. It appears from the evidence that the importer had been bringing these goods into this country previous to these importations. He was advised by the examiner at an interview that his entered values were too low, and that they would be raised by the examiner if he, the importer, did not raise them on entry. There is no claim that any influence was brought to bear by the collector upon entry, or that the importer was prevented, by anything done by the Government officers at the time of entry from entering his goods at any price he saw fit. There was no duress which will in any way vitiate the proceedings in this case.-Ab. 31821 (T. D. 33304). Manifest Clerical Error.-The evidence of the admitted clerical error here was before the importers at the time they made entry. Subsequently the error in valuation was disclosed to the appraiser. These facts do not constitute a case of manifest clerical error. U. S. v. Swedish Produce Co. (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 223; T. D. 33437); U. S. v. Wyman (Ibid., 264; T. D. 33485); U. S. v. Proctor (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 44; T. D. 34091).-U. S. v. Bayersdorfer & Co. (Ct. Cust. Appls.), T. D. 34134; (G. A. Ab. 32999) T. D. 33594 reversed.

There was a mistake made in the invoice in stating the cost of the wool of the importation. To constitute manifest clerical error, this must be apparent to the appraising officers or collector at the time of liquidation and upon the

record itself. This is stare decisis. There was nothing in the record here to show the appraising officers or collector that the error was caused by an inaccurate statement of the price of the wool. U. S. v. Swedish Produce Co. (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 223; T. D. 33437); U. S. v. Wyman & Co. (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 264; T. D. 33485); U. S. v. Proctor Co. (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 44; T. D. 34091; Hampton, jr., & Co. v. U. S. (5 Ct. Cust. Appls., 51; T. D. 34093).-Thomsen & Co. v. U. S. (Ct. Cust. Appls.), T. D. 34100; (G. A. Ab. 33156) T. D. 33660 affirmed,

These automobile tires were sold and imported to replace defective tires at a reduced rate. The brokers made the entry, following the invoice, without edding anything to the invoice price to make market value. This was not a clerical error. Subsection 7 of section 28 plainly requires, if it is desired to add to the invoice value to make market value, that this should be done at the time of making entry and not afterwards. U. S. v. Swedish Produce Co. (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 223; T. D. 33437; U. S. v. Wyman, 4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 264; T. D. 33485).-U. S. v. Proctor Co. (Ct. Cust. Appls.), T. D. 34091; (G. A. Ab. 31245) T. D. 33160 reversed.

Importers claim they overstated the value of the merchandise in a pro forma invoice, being misled by an error in the transmission of a cable message from their London office. The appraiser appraised the merchandise at the value stated in the pro forma invoice, and the collector liquidated thereon. It is held that this is not manifest error in the appraisement or assessment, and can not be reviewed upon protest to the board of classification.-U. S. v. National Steam Navigation Co., Ltd. (Ct. Cust. Appls.), T. D. 33915 (G. A. Ab. 31167); T. D. 33145 reversed.

Samples Held Dutiable as Appraised.—The board has uniformly held that the remedy of an importer is to appeal to reappraisement in order to determine the correct value of his imported merchandise, and that such question can not be raised by protest.

In Badische v. U. S. (4 Ct. Cust. Appls., 374; T. D. 33535) it was decided by the Court of Customs Appeals that the initial step to obtain relief should be an appeal to reappraisement and not by protest.-T. D. 33619 (G. A. 7479). Clerical Error-Decisions Reviewed.-Under the recent decisions of the United States Court of Customs Appeals the Board of United States General Appraisers has power to correct only such clerical errors as are manifest and apparent upon the face of such papers as are before the collector at the time of liquidation of the entry. The administrative and judicial decisions on this subject reviewed.-T. D. 33590 (G. A. 7476).

Duress. The importers were embarrassed in stating the actual market value of their merchandise, but they elected to enter the woolens and cottons here with the additions of a penny a yard for dampage and 10 per cent for shrinking. A notation that this was done under duress does not make a case of duress. No unlawful demand was made on the importers, and what they did was done freely and voluntarily to fix the entered value of the goods.-Van Ingen & Co. v. U. S. (Ct. Cust. Appls.), T. D. 33520 (G. A. 7433); T. D. 33193 affirmed.

The fear of possible additional duties, depending upon the result of reappraisement proceedings, does not constitute duress.-T. D. 33193 (G. A. 7433). Clerical Error.

The commission charged abroad, disputed here as dutiable, was entered on the invoice in the words and figures intended by the writer; they received from the collector the interpretation they were intended to take when the invoice was made out. This is not a case of manifest clerical error. U. S. v.

Bennett et al. (2 Ct. Cust. Appls., 249; T. D. 31975).—U. S. v. Wyman & Co. (Ct. Cust. Appls.), T. D. 33485; (G. A. Ab. 31113) T. D. 33106 reversed.

AMOUNT OF DUTIES ON REVIEW.-The customs administrative law, subsection 14, vests jurisdiction in the Board of General Appraisers to review the decision of any collector of customs as to "the rate and amount of duties chargeable upon imported merchandise."-U. S. v. Benjamin et al. (72 Fed., 51).

MANIFEST CLERICAL ERROR, WHAT IS NOT.-Obviously there is a broad distinction between clerical error and manifest clerical error. In this case the distinction is statutory, affording a remedy for the latter, but not for the former.

It appears that the facts establishing the undervaluation of this merchandise were known to the importers at the time the entry was made. In view of the importers' knowledge the undervaluation does not present a case of manifest clerical error.

What constitutes a manifest clerical error, as distinguished from clerical error in the generic sense of the term, has been frequently the subject of adjudication. In Hermance v. Ulster Co. Suprs. (71 N. Y., 481, 485, 486), the court said:

The errors which may be corrected are "manifest" errors; not errors which may be shown to have been committed by extrinsic evidence or may be proved to the satisfaction of the court. But "manifest," as used here, means something which is apparent by an examination of the assessment roll or return, needing no evidence to make it more clear.

The Supreme Court of Vermont defines manifest as obvious, view clearly, apparent, plain." Lapham v. Curtis (5 Vt., 371-377).-U. S. v. Swedish Produce Co. (Ct. Cust. Appls.), T. D. 33437; (G. A. Ab. 29501) T. D. 32760 reversed.

Additional Duty-Currency.-The merchandise was invoiced in Spanish pesetas upon a silver basis and the value of the silver peseta of Spain certified to on the back of the consular invoice. It was entered upon the value stated in the invoice, and upon his entry paper the importer translated the pesetas into United States dollars, evidently adopting in his calculation the value of the gold peseta. The merchandise was advanced by the appraiser and the general appraiser, both adopting the silver peseta. Under the operation of subsection 7 of section 28 this would render the importer liable to the additional duty provided for therein. The importer is not required by law to calculate the value of foreign money in making his entry. The invoice being in silver pesetas, the entry must be treated as being in silver pesetas, there being nothing to indicate the contrary.-Ab. 33350 (T. D. 33695).

Excess Goods-Additional Duty.-The facts are that 58 cartons of artificial flowers found in packages of imported merchandise had not been invoiced or entered; in other words, these 58 cartons constituted excess merchandise.

The question as to whether or not the provisions for additional duty under subsection 7 should apply to excess merchandise, like many questions of customs law, is one which, as a result of not adhering closely to principle but rather letting decisions be controlled too much by the doctrine of ex necessitate rei, is now somewhat in confusion. Joseph Herazy's case, G. A. 5804 (T. D. 25645), never appealed from. Leeming & Co.'s case, G. A. 6315 (T. D. 27216). Leeming & Co.'s case was appealed (Leeming v. U. S., 153 Fed., 489; T. D. 27986) and reversed, apparently upon the ground that the rule of law held by the board to apply would leave the door open to fraud. Thereafter Downing & Co.'s case, G. A. 6957 (T. D. 30207) followed, as Leeming v. U. S., supra. In the meanwhile, the United States Court of Customs Appeals having been established,