- UNITED snmsi v. mum. 23
appeal has been previously decided in favor of the importer, and a
reliquidation made by the collector in accordance with the decision
and with the importers claim; both because no further re-examina-
tion or reliquidation is demanded by the importer, and because there
is no protest and appeal from the last liquidation, which is the only
remaining assessment of duties said to be erroneous, and which it is
proposed to correct; whereas the proviso expressly requires such a
protest and appeal as a condition of the secretary’s right to take fur-
ther action. This proviso, moreover, manifestly has no reference to
a direct review by the secretary himself of his own previous decision,
as to the principle of classification, in favor of the importer, and as a
part of his proceedings upon a protest and appeal under section 2931.
The third proviso of the same section of the act of 1875, relating
to the correction of errors "arising solely upon errors of fact," does `
not purport to enlarge the secretary’s former powers; it has no ref-
erence to the secretary’s authority to review his own decisions in
proceedings brought before him upon protest and appeal under sec-
tion 2931; nor can it apply at all tothis case, which depends upon
the construction of different sections of the tariff act as to classifica-
tion, and not upon any errors in liquidation "arising solely from· T
errors of fact." _ »
For the above reasons it must be held that the decision on appeal,
under section 2931, is a binding adjudication upon the government,
and cannot be disregarded or set aside by any subsequent independ-i
ent order, nor collaterally attacked or reversed, except by suit, as
provided by that section. V i . .
2. It remains to consider what is the decision on appeal which, by
section 2931, is made “nnal and c0nclusive;" andwhether, aside
from the act of 1875, which I have said doeslnot affect it, when once
rendered, it can be recalled, reviewed, and reversed as a part of the
same appellate proceeding. A similar question in regard to the
action of the permanent appraisers was considered in Iasigi v. The
Collector, 1 Wall. 375, 383. But the act of 1830 (Rev. St. §· 2929)
expressly authorizes the collector to direct a reappraisement, if dis-
satished with the appraiser’s report; and in view of thatact, and of
the liability of the appraisers to mistake through the lack of infor-
mation, and of the interests of the government, it was held that the
appraisers, upon the collector’s request, might, within a reasonable
time, reconsider their report. In Bartlett v. Kane, 16 How.-263, it
was also held that after an appeal had been taken tothe merchant
, appraisers, but before it had been acted on, the permanent appraisers
might further consider their valuation and require the production of
papers relating thereto. But neither this reappraisement by the
original appraisers, sustained by express statutory authority,=nor~the
reliquidation which the collector may also make, underthe express
statutory limitation of the effect of his original liquidation, afford
any support to a direct review and reversal of~the decision on appeal