Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/153

 146 federal bepobteb. �October, 1874, the duties were liquidated at $658.25. On the twenty-seventh of April, 1875, the duties were reliquidated at $783.35. Meanwhile, the goods had been withdrawn from warehouse and the goods delivered to the defendant, and the duties paid upon the basis of the first liquidation — the last delivery and pajment of duty being on the ninth of Feb- ruary, 1876. �There was no fraud in the importation, entry or with- drawal of the goods, and no protest by the importer. �This action was commenced in June, 1876, to reoover the balance of $125.10, being the excess of the second liquida- tion over the amount of the duties paid. �The entries which are made part of the agreed statement of facts show that the first liquidation was upon the basis of a duty of 25 per cent., and the second liquidation was on the basis of a duty of 40 per cent, upon that portion of the goods which actually remained in warehouse after the eighth day of February, 1875, although the defendant had, on the twenty- fifth of January, signed and presented to the coUector an entry for their withdrawal, under which they were delivered from warehouse and the duties paid on the ninth of February. �The point sought to be raised by the defendant is whether, under the act of February 8, 1875, (18 St. 307,) which im- posed this inoreased duty on goods "in bonded warehouse" on the eighth day of February, these goods were, within the meaningof the law, "in bonded warehouse" on that day. The ground on which, as it is assumed by counsel, the duties were reliquidated at 40 per cent., was that they were, within the meaning of the act, still in warehouse, while the defendant contends that they had been withdrawn. It is, however, impossible to raise this question on this record. In the recent case of the United Statea v. Phelps it was held that the col- lector is authorized, notwithstanding the payment of duties upon a regular liquidation, and the delivery of the goods to the importer, to make a reliquidation, although the error sought to be eorrected by sueh reliquidation is an error or a supposed error of law ordy. The circuit court held that the act of March 8, 1875, (18 St. 469,) did not restriot the power ����