240 FEDEBAli BEFO£TEB. �within 90 days after the decision of the secretary on Buch appeal for any duties which shall have been paid before the date of such decis- ion." �The plaintiff, admitting as he must that this action was net com- menced within 90 days from the decision of the secretary, contends that the statute should be construed as if it read : unless the action shall be commenced within 90 daye after the importer has knowledge or notice of such decision. �But this construction wonld be plainly without the letter of the statute and the apparent intention of congress. The act makes the limitation to commence from the date of the secretary's decision, and is silent as to the knowledge of the party or the effect of his want of notice. The decision of the secretary is a public act in writing, filed in the department, and under the present treasury regulations is com- municated to the collecter and importer. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff in this case had notice of decision in 12 days from its date, and therefore had 78 days within which to commence suit. In such a case there is no ground to claim that the law has operated haidly, or 80 as to prevent the plaintiffs from asserting their rights in court by the use of ordinary diligence. �But a case may occur, it is suggested, where, through the negligence of the officiais, or other cause, the importer might not learn of the secretary's decision so as to bring his action within the time; yet even then, as said in substance by Mr. Justice Strong in Westray v. U. S. 18 Wall. 322, in considering a similar question under the same statute, the court cannot require a notice to be given to the importer to prevent the limitation from running, when congress has not. In that case the court held that the importer was not entitled to notice . of the liquidation or estimate of duties on his merchandise by the col- lecter, so as to enable him to take his appeal to the secretary of the treasury within 10 days thereafter, as the statute requires, but that he must get his information on that point for himself. �If any authority is needed in support of this demurrer, beyond the plain provision of the statute, that case appears to be decisive of this. It is true that the importer may learn of the decision of the collecter more readily than that of the secretary, if no means are taken to furnish him with either. But the law does not require him to be furnished with notice at all. The department, in the adminis- tration of the law, has found it ]ust and convenient to direct that notice be given to the importer of the decision of the officer, but the failure to do so does not affect the legal rights of the parties. Notwith- ��� �
