This  is an appeal by the  Insular  Collector  of Customs from a  judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila overruling the decision  of the Collector of Customs upon the protest of Lim Quim, and ordering that the duties paid  by him in excess  of the declared value of the goods be refunded.

The plaintiff  imported into the Philippine Islands certain merchandise f Japan which  was subject to an ad valorem duty.   The valuation of said merchandise  made by  the appraiser at the Manila customhouse was P277.35 more than the value shown in the invoice.   In  his decision deny plaintiff's protest the Insular Collector of Customs said: 

"This claim for reduction in the returned value of certain leather  belts fans and straw hats is denied for the reason  that the values compare favorably with samples on  file of similar articles imported by other merchants in the same quantity at  about the same time,  and for the further reason that upon special investigation  in Japan it is shown  that the values re are correct."   (Bill of Exceptions, p. 2.)

The Court of  First Instance reversed the decision of the Insular  Collector Customs and  ordered the return of that portion of  the duty which was based on  a  valuation in excess of the invoice  value, holding that: 

"The  values  of similar articles obtained by other merchants and by  the investigation of an agent of  the Philippine custom service in the place production and sale of merchandise subject to duty should serve as a basic for the  regulation of the duties, in case they are  not contradicted by definite and decisive proof which is forthcoming  in this case, consisting nothing less than  a certificate; not of any  foreign  local authority, b the United States consul himself in the place from which the merchandise said official assuring that the values stated in the invoice are correct, values agree perfectly with the  sworn  declarations  of the sellers them (Bill of Exceptions, p. 5.)

Rule 13 (a) of the Philippine Tariff Law of 1909, provides that: 

"Whenever imported  merchandise is subject  to an ad valorem rate duty, the duty  shall be assessed upon the actual market value  or wholesale price of such merchandise,  as bought and sold in usual wholes quantities, at the time  of exportation to the Philippine  Islands, in t principal markets of the country from whence  imported,  and in the condition in which  such  merchandise is there bought and sold for exportation to the Philippine  Islands, or consigned to the Philippine for sale, including the value  of  all cartons, cases, crates, boxes, sacks, coverings  of any kind,  and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to th Philippine Islands."

The general method of applying this rule and the duties of customs' appraisers are set forth in sections 189 to 197, inclusive, of Act  No. the Philippine  Commission. Section 191 of said Act provides that:

"Appraisers shall inspect, examine, and appraise by all reasonable ways means all imported merchandise or dutiable merchandise for exportation w may be designated by the Collector of Customs, and report to the latter writing whether the prices, named in the entry are correct according to market value or wholesale price of similar goods  on the day  of  shipment in  the  principal markets of the country whence exported.  Appraisers s describe all merchandise in such terms as will enable the collector to p the appraisal and classification of the same, and shall report whether t measurements and quantities  (except as to such goods as are weighed, gauged, or measured by the  surveyor  or  officer performing the duties thereof) agree with the  entry."

The rule is well established that the value of merchandise fixed by the appraiser and affirmed by the Collector of Customs is conclusive in the absence of an affirmative showing that the appraiser, in assessing the v proceeded upon a wrong principle and contrary to law.  (Robertson vs. Frank Brothers  Company,  132 U. S.,  17; Auffmordt vs. Hedden, 1 310; Passavant vs.  United States, 148 U.  S.,  214; Muser vs. 155 U.  S., 240.)

In Muser vs. Magone  (155 U. S., 240)  the court held that "the d market value of goods is determined by their general market value without regard to special advantages which the importer may enjoy" and that "the presumption is that a sworn officer, acting in the discharge of his duty a Subject over which  jurisdiction is given him, has acted rightly."  Th further said:  "The conclusiveness of the valuation  of imported merchant made by the  designated officials, in  the absence of fraud,   is too thoroughly settled to admit of further  discussion."

If the customs authorities  were bound by the invoice value,  it is evident they would be, to, a considerable extent, at the mercy of foreign merchants and  importers. The purpose of Congress in providing for appraisers was prevent fraud upon  the  customs, and  thus protect the revenues of the Government.

It will be noted that the consular certificate is merely  a notarial act that the consul does not make any declaration as to the value of the merchandise.  The only declaration or statement of the value of the merchandise is that contained in the  affidavit of the  seller;  but, as shown, the tariff law specifically provides that  "the duty shall be ass upon the actual market value or wholesale price of such merchandise, as bought  and sold in  usual wholesale quantities, at the time of exportation to the Philippine  Islands, in the principal markets  of  the country fr whence imported,   *  *  *;"  and the  Customs Administrative Act  provides that  "appraisers shall inspect, examine, and appraise by all reasonable and  means all imported merchandise or dutiable  merchandise for exportation  which  may be designated  by the  Collector of Customs, and report to the  latter  in writing whether the prices named in the  entry correct according to  the market value or wholesale price of similar  go on  the day of shipment in the principal markets of the country whence exported."

The burden is upon the importer to  overcome  the presumption of a leg collection of duties by proof that their exaction was unlawful (Erhardt Schroeder,  155 U. S., 124), and the importer must establish the  illegality the action of  the appraisers in order  to  recover duties paid under  protest (United States vs.  Ranlet and Stone, 172 U.  S.,  133, 146).

Under the express provisions of law and  the decisions of the Supreme Co of the United States above noted, it is clear that the lower court erred treating the decision of the duly authorized  customs authorities, under facts, as  conclusive.

Judgment reversed, without costs to  either party.

Arellano,  C.  J.,  Torres,  Mapa,  Johnson,  Carson, and Trent, JJ.,  concur.