818 FBDBBAL EEPOBTEB. �gdods have been once regularly withdrawn and the dufies paid as liquidated at the time of withdrawal, and after the lapse of the period of three yeare specified on the bond for payment. �The question here presented could not arise as regards the importer himself, for he ia liable for any deficiency in payment of the lawful duties, irrespective of the withdrawal of the goods, and, prior to the act of 1874, reliquidation as against him might be had at any subse- quent time, and suit brought against him for the deficiency. U. S. V. Phelps, ITBIatchf. 312, 316; Dumont v. U. S. 98 U. S. 142, 144; U. S. V. Cousinery, 7 Ben. 251; Westray v. U. S. 18 Wall. 322. �The situation of the surety is different. His liability is limited to the conditions of the bond itself. U. S. v. Dumont, 98 TJ. S. 142; Miller v. Stewart, 9 Wheat. 681; U. S. v. Boecker, 21 Wall. 652m. These conditions are that the bond should be "void" if in one year the goods should be regularly and lawfully withdrawn upon payment of the duties and charges to which they shall then be subject, or if they should be so withdrawn within three years, on payment of sueh duties and charges, and 10 per cent, additional. " These goods were regularly and lawfully withdrawn within one year, i. «., in the usual and ous- tomary manner, upon payment of the duties as liquidated at that time. �The "legal duties" to which the goods were "then subject" were, in legal contemplation, the duties as then liquidated and fixed by the collector. He and those under him are the persons charged by law with the duty of making the necessary examination of the goods, and of determining "the rate and the amount of duties." By the act of June 30, 1864, under which this entry was made, it is declared that "the decision of the collector as to the rate and amount of duties shall be final and conclusive against all persons interested therein, unless the owner appeal, etc., within 10 days after the ascertainment and liquidation of the duties by the properofficers," and that "sueh goods shall be liable to duty accordingly, any act of eongress notwithstanding," etc. 13 St. at Large, c. 171 p. 214, § 14. �In the case of U. S. v. Cousinery, 7 Ben. 255, which was approved by the chief justice in Watt v. U. S. 15 Blatchf. 33, Blatchford, C. J., says, in reference to this clause of the statute: "This means that the decision (i e., of the collector, if there be no appeal, or of the sec- retary, if there be an appeal) is made the test and standard of the pay- ment of the daties to the government, even if there be an act of eon- gress which seems to prescribe something different from the decision." Page 257. And in the same case he also says : "The amount fixed by ��� �
