Appeals- In deciding appeals from the Board of General Appraisers, considerable weight should be attached in close cases to the opinion of experts like the General Appraisers who are familiar with controversies of the kind in question. (T. D. 28688; Jan. 15, 1908.) The rule of the controlling effect to be given by an appellate tribunal to the concurred decisions of two tribunals below on questions of fact is applicable to instances where a finding by the Board of General Appraisers has been affirmed by the circuit court. (T. D. 28782; Feb. 19, 1908.) Collectors of customs should take no appeals from decisions of the Board of United States General Appraisers in the absence of specific instructions from the department. (T. D. 29971; Aug. 27, 1909.) Copies of petitions on appeal in customs cases filed by importers to be forwarded to the Deputy Assistant Attorney-General. (T. D. 30026; Oct. 4, 1909.) In certain cases a mandate having been issued on petition directing the court below to transmit the records to the Court of Customs Appeals for adjudication, and it being contended the cases are not properly before the Court of Customs Appeals on appeal, the petitions will be treated as applications for the allowance of appeals and the appellants will be permitted to withdraw the original petition with certificates of the allowance of their appeals by the Court of Customs Appeals to be used in having the cases duly certified from the court below for its determination. Gross v. United States (No. 451). Herskovitz v. United States (No. 452), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Order entered. (T. D. 31323; Feb. 14, 1911.) Assignments of error Among the assignments of error made by an importer on appeal from the Board of General Appraisers were general assignments that the board had erred "in overruling the protests" and "in not sus aining the protests," and the protests thus referred to mentioned the paragraph relied upon by the importers. Held, that this was a compliance with the requirement in section 15, customs administrative act of 1890, of "a concise statement of the errors of law and fact complained of." United States v. Loewenthal, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, December 7, 1909. No. 13 (suit 4067). Appeal by the United States from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York (T. D. 29164), reversing Abstract 7246 (T. D. 26559). Decision adverse to the Government. (T. D. 30215; Dec. 21, 1909.) Acquiesced in March 31, 1910 (T. D. 30476). One of the several contentions urged by the appellant on argument was based on an assignment of error that merely negatived the entire result in the court below. Held, that such assignment was too general, though this defect might have been overlooked if there had been a plain error. United States v. Stone & Downer Co., United States Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit, December 20, 1909. No. 834 (suit 1833). Appeal by United States from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts (171 Fed. Rep., 293; T. D. 29804), affirming Abstract 11235 (T. D. 27348). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30228; Dec. 28, 1909.) On appeal from the Board of General Appraisers error was assigned on the point that the board had erred in holding the merchandise in question to be free of duty. Held, that the assignment related to the merits and was not sufficiently comprehensive to include the point of the sufficiency of the protest passed on by the board. The circuit court on appeal from the Board of General Appraisers will not consider whether a protest decided by the board was insufficient, unless the question of insufficiency is raised by the assignment of errors. United States v. Hempstead, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New Appeals Continued. Assignments of error-Continued. York, July 1, 1910. Suit 4796. Appeal by the importer from the decision of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 13865 (T. D. 27801). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30844; Aug. 2, 1910.) Circuit court Jurisdiction of: Where a general appraiser has been appointed referee to take further testimony in the circuit court, on appeal from the Board of General Appraisers under section 15, customs administractive act of 1890, there is no authority whereby the circuit court may direct the general appraiser to go beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court to take testimony. This rule is not altered by the fact that the general appraiser may express his willingness to go. Nordlinger v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, July 27, 1900. Suit 93. Appeal by importer from unpublished decision of Board of General Appraisers. Board reversed. (T. D. 30189; Dec. 14, 1909.) Writ of error inapplicable: Decrees by circuit courts on review of decisions by the Board of General Appraisers, under section 15, customs administrative act of 1890, may be reviewed by circuit courts of appeals by appeal only, under section 6, act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 828), creating the circuit courts of appeals. Review by writ of error is not permissible, in error to the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Texas, United States v. Bond, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, December 15, 1908. No. 1810 (suit 1714). In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Texas. (T. D. 29816; June 8, 1909.) Doubtful questions of fact On appeal from the Board of General Appraisers the circuit court should not disturb the board's findings upon doubtful questions of fact, especially as to questions which turn upon the intelligence and credibility of witnesses who have been produced before the board. Balaban v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, November 8, 1909. Suit 5424. Appeal by importer from decision of Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 20074 (T. D. 29409). Board affirmed. (T. D. 30187; Dec. 14, 1909.) Evidence, further The procedure is faulty in customs appeals under section 15, customs administrative act of 1890, in that it permits parties to partially present a case before the Board of General Appraisers, and, on losing it there, then to produce in the circuit court evidence which could have as easily been submitted to the board. (T. D. 28820; Mar. 4, 1908.) On appeal to the circuit court from the Board of General Appraisers, the importers may not, under section 15, customs administrative act of 1890, introduce evidence as to items of their merchandise with respect to which no evidence was offered at the hearing before the board. Where importers appeared at a hearing before the Board of General Appraisers, and, after introducing evidence as to certain items, rested their case, without suggesting that there were other items covered by their protest, the board was justified in assuming that the importers had limited their claim to the items covered by the evidence that was introduced, and had abandoned their protests so far as they related to other goods. After importers, on appeal to the circuit court from the Board of General Appraisers, had introduced some evidence under section 15, customs administrative act of 1890, the taking of further evidence was objected to by the Government on the ground that it was inadmissible because no evidence on the same merchandise had been offered before the board. Held, that the Government was not estopped from relying on this objection because Appeals Continued. Evidence, further-Continued. it was not taken at an earlier stage of the proceedings. The right of "further evidence" in the circuit court, given by section 15, customs administrative act of 1890, on appeal from the Board of General Appraisers, does not permit importers to ignore the board by withholding their evidence entirely and introducing it before the circuit court, thus presenting their controversies for the first time to the court. Such procedure would defeat the main purpose of said customs administrative act. Plummer v. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, December 15, 1908. No. 105 (suit 4217). Appeal from Circuit Court of United States for Southern District of New York (160 Fed. Rep., 284; T. D. 28635), affirming Abstract 10331 (T: D. 27182). Decision in favor of Government. (T. D. 29443; Dec. 29, 1908.) Where an importer appears before the Board of General Appraisers and gives evidence as to the matter at issue, he is not precluded from the introduction of further evidence on appeal to the circuit court under section 15, customs administrative act of 1890. Wolff v. United States, United States Circuit Court, Northern District of California, March 22, 1909. No. 13836 (suit 1774). Appeal by importer from decision of Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 8757 (T. D. 26818). Board reversed. (T. D. 29677; Apr. 7, 1909.) Evidence excluded: The provision in section 15, customs administrative act of 1890, that on appeal to the circuit court the Board of General Appraisers shall return "the record and the evidence taken by them," does not require that the board should return evidence which they excluded. Where on such appeal it is desired that evidence excluded by the board should be passed on by the court, it is requisite either that an exception should be taken to the board's ruling excluding the evidence and the matter brought before the court in the assignments of error, or that the evidence should have been offered as additional evidence in the manner provided in said section. Harris v. United States, United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, January 7, 1910. No. 232 (suit 1931). Appeal by the importer from the decisions of the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6502 (T. D. 27784) and Abstract 14019 (T. D. 27801). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30275; Jan. 18, 1910.) Testimony reviewed: Where there is a later importation of merchandise identical in kind with a former importation and a new and different issue is presented as to the true character of the importation, the United States Court of Customs Appeals will, in reaching a decision, review all the testimony (declining to follow Bockmann v. United States, 158 Fed. Rep., 807; T. D. 28784). (T. D. 30849; July 25, 1910.) Under the act of May 27, 1908 (35 Stat., 403; T. D. 29044), providing that "hereafter" the parties litigant should be required to introduce all their evidence before the Board of General Appraisers, there was no right to introduce further evidence in the circuit court as to cases decided by the board after said date, even though the cases arose before that date and had been submitted to the board for decision under the previous law, customs administrative act of 1890, section 15 of which permitted further evidence to be taken in the circuit court. Beer v. United States, United State Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, May 11, 1910. Suit 5320. Appeal by importers from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, G. A. 6788 (T. D. 29144). Government moved to vacate ex parte order for further testimony taken out by importer. Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 30843; Aug. 2, 1910.) The practice of taking additional evidence on appeal from the Board of General Appraisers, under section 15, customs administrative act of 1890, has been very liberal; a motion to require the general appraiser to make his return, on the Appeals Continued. Evidence, further-Continued. ground that the importer had failed to duly exercise the right of introducing further evidence upon an order obtained, ordered to stand and the appraiser directed to allow the parties a reasonable time to take further evidence. Harris v. United States, United States Circuit Court, District of Massachusetts, May 5, 1910. No. 232 (suit 1931). (T. D. 31166; Dec. 31, 1910.) "Judgment"-Decision by consent In the circuit court an order affirming a decision by the Board of General Appraisers was entered by consent of counsel for both sides, "to expedite the final decision of the issue at bar in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals * * * without prejudice to the right of appeal." Held (1) that as there had been no judgment of the circuit court in a just sense of the work, there was no error to be assigned; (2) that to hear the appeal would be to disregard the statute establishing the circuit court of appeals, thus converting it from an appellate tribunal to a court of first instance, contrary to the intent of the law; and (3) that the Circuit Court of Appeals is therefore without jurisdiction. Ballot v. United States, United States Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit, April 28, 1909. No. 818 (suit 2050). Appeal by importer from Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts (T. D. 29548), affirming Abstract 19887 (T. D. 29339). Decision in favor of the Government. (T. D. 29766; May 19 1909.) Premature The Board of General Appraisers granted an application for rehearing on the same date that an appeal from its original decision was taken to the circuit court, these proceedings being brought under the provisions of sections 1 and 2, act of May 27, 1908 (35 Stat., 403). Held, that by reason of the allowance of the rehearing the appeal was premature and should be dismissed. United States v. Gallagher, United States Circuit Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, February 4, 1910. No. 29329 (suit 2059). Appeal by United States from decision of the Board of General Appraisers, Abstract 20307 (T. D. 29449). Appeal dismissed without prejudice. (T. D. 30365; Feb. 21, 1910.) Preparation of— Appeals from decisions of the board shall be made in the name of the Secretary of the Treasury, and all appeal papers shall be prepared in the office of the Assistant Attorney General. (T. D. 30701; June 17, 1910.) Procedure The appeal as taken by petition omits the names of certain protestants, though the numbers of their protests are given in the annexed schedule. This is not sufficient. Orderly practice, as well as compliance with the rules of the court, require that the caption or body of the petition for review should embrace the names of the parties and that the names of the appealing parties should be signed to the petition. Amendments: If there were any question of the authority of the court to permit generally an amendment of such petition, power to do this is certainly conferred by section 954, Revised Statutes. Meyer & Lange et al. v. United States (No. 1162), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 31712 (T. D. 33280), Abstract 31975 (T. D. 33338). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 33855; Oct. 31, 1913.) Reappraisement— Timeliness: A collector of customs, in requesting a reappraisement of imported merchandise under the authority of section 13, customs administrative act of 1890, is required to act within a reasonable time; and where such request was not made until the lapse of nearly one year from the date of the entry, and the Appeals Continued. Reappraisement-Continued. goods had been delivered to the importer and gone into consumption, his action is invalid as not being taken within a reasonable time. (T. D. 30378-G. A. 6983; Feb. 21, 1910.) Time within which fee must be deposited: The fee provided by paragraph M of section 3 of the act of October 3, 1913, must be deposited within two days after the filing of the appeal to reappraisement and holidays or Sundays should not be excluded. (T. D. 33904; Nov. 21, 1913.) Appeals are regulated or denied by statute and the determination of the tribunal of a question of law or tacts is final unless an appeal be authorized either by the organic law or some effective statute. The review of legislation affecting a collector's right to "appeal" to reappraisement reveals no statutory method governing him in making his appeal; but viewing this legislation as a whole it is held that it is an appeal if he complies with the regulation authorizing him, if he is dissatisfied with the appraisement, to transmit the invoice and all the papers appertaining thereto to the board of nine general appraisers. The transmission by a collector of another port by mailing is a compliance with the statute. Larzelere & Co. v. United States (No. 1412), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Appeal by the importers from Board of United States General Appraisers, Abstract 35421 (T. D. 34416). Decision affirmed. (T. D. 35154; Feb. 12, 1915.) Reports in appeals to reappraisement to be sent to the United States appraiser, 641 Washington Street, New York, Law Division (T. D. 34989), and the balance of the papers in such appeals to be forwarded to the Board of United States General Appraisers, in conformity with paragraph M of section 3 of the tariff act of October 3, 1913. (T. D. 35218; Mar. 13, 1915.) Timeliness Motion to dismiss appeal on the ground that more than one year had elapsed since the date of the judgment sought to be reviewed. Held, that an order entered after hearing, that "the petition herein be, and hereby is, dismissed, and that findings and decision be filed and judgment thereon entered herein accordingly," was not, under the California practice, final so as to preclude and did not preclude appeal from a judgment later entered. The first order clearly contemplated a future finding of facts and judgment thereon. United States v. Harper & Co. (No. 482), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Motion denied. (T. D. 32367; Feb. 12, 1912.) Motion to dismiss suit: This case involves a motion to dismiss an appeal taken by the Government on the ground that the time for an appeal had elapsed when application was made to the court. Held, that where a motion for a new trial has been entered within the time fixed by law, the limitation of 60 days within which it is permitted to take an appeal begins to run not from the date of the original decision, but from the date the motion for a new trial is disposed of. United States v. Vandegrift & Co. (No. 730), United States Court of Customs Appeals. Motion denied. (T. D. 32197; Jan. 11, 1912.) In construing the provision in section 15, customs administrative act of 1890, that applications to circuit courts from decisions by the Board of General Appraisers should be made "within thirty days next after such decision, and not afterwards, * * * by filing in the office of the clerk of said circuit" an assignment of errors, Held, that the statute is mandatory, that it must be construed strictly, and that a delay beyond the period named is as fatal as a longer period. Where an application for review of a decision by the Board of General Appraisers is not filed within the time required by section 15, customs administrative act of 1890, the proper disposition of the case by the circuit court is by an order of |