p. 369at the port of Alexandria before the 1st of January* 1808, was liable to duty.
The court below was-of opinion that if was not, and rendered judgment for the defendants, Upon the demurrer.'/ -
The United States brought their, writ of error.'
yones, for the United States.
The duty attached when the salt was imported into the district, and, perhaps, when brought into the United States.
By the act of the 10th of August, 1790, vol. 1. pi 248. a duty of 12 cents a bushel is laid upon salt which, after the 31st of December then next, should be “ brought into the United Slates, from any foreign port or place.” So by the act of the 8Ih July, 1797, vol.- 4. p. 35. an additional duty of 8 cents is laid. upon all salt imported into the United. States. By the act of March 3,1807, vol. 8. p. 290. it is eüacted-, “ that from and after the 31st day of December next, so much of any act as lays a* duty upon imported salt, be and the same is hereby repealed; and from and after 'the day l^st aforesaid, salt shall be imported into the United States free of duty: Provided that:-for the recovery and receipt of such duties: as jjhall have accrued, and on the days aforesaid respectively remain outstanding, and for the recovery and distribution of fines,, penalties and forfeitures, and the remission thereof, which shall have been incurred before and on the said days respectively, the provisions of the aforesaid act shall remain in full force and virtue.”
The laws of the United States take a distinction between importing and entering, between a port and a place. Vol. 4. p. 317. § 23. and 24. Goods may be imported, before they are enteréd or delivered. So if goods are brought in and destined to be delivered in different districts or ports, they are to be inserted*
p. 372In all cases too where additional duties have-been imposed, the construction of the . treasury has always been, that the additional duties are to be paid if the' vessel arrived at.théj&orí after the day fixed by law,although she arrived within the district before that day.
•March 15,
delivered the opinion of the court to the following effect:
The distinction tajeen by the counsel for the defendants in error, between a district and a port of entry, is correct. The duties did not accrue in the fiscal sense of the term, until the vessel arrived at the port of entry. If the question had been doubtful, the court would have respected the uniform construction which it is understood has been given by the treasury department of the United States upon similar questions. It is understood that in case of an increase of duty, the United States have always demanded and received 'the additional duty if. the goods have not arrived at the fort of. entry before the time fixed for the commencement of such additional duty, although the vessel may have arrived within the collection district before that time. The same rule of construction is to be observed when there is a diminution of duty.
Judgment affirmed.