On June 1, 1905, Lutz & Co. imported from France a shipment of silk and cotton textiles, which shipment left France in March 1905. They declared the value of the goods at .55 of a franc per meter, less 20 percent, or at about .43 of a franc. The Customs officers appraised the value of the goods at .55 of a franc, less 2 percent, or about .54 of a franc.
Lutz & Co., the importer appealed the decision of the Collector of Customs to the Court of First Instance. The Court sustained the decision of the Collector of Customs as to the amount appraised.
Lutz & Co. on July 15, 1905 again made an importation of the same kind of goods, which left France about June 1. They declared this entry at .57 of a franc per meters, less 20 percent, or about .44 of a franc. The Customs officers appraised the goods at .57 of a franc, less 2 percent. The Collector of Customs confirmed the appraisal of its officers. Again, the importer questioned the decision of the Collector of Customs before the Court of First Instance which was again sustained.
Lutz & Co. appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Supreme Court. It was found out during the trial that the witness of Lutz & Co. who testified that they paid the amounts which they declared in the customs was only in their employ on August 10, 1906.
The Supreme Court in its decision dated September 5, 1907 quoted a case, and said:
"When an appeal is taken from his decision, the decision of the Collector ceases to be conclusive and the same is true of the decision of the Secretary of Treasury. These officers are, however, selected by law for the express purpose of deciding these questions. They are appointed and required to pronounce a judgment in each case, and the conduct, management and operation of the revenue system to require that their decisions should carry with them the presumption of correctness. This rule is not only wise and prudent but is in accordance with the general principle of law than an officer acting in the discharge of his duty upon the subject over which jurisdiction is given him is assumed to have acted rightly"
In resolving the case the Supreme Court said:
"While the Customs Administrative Act, above cited, in force in these islands does not seem to give the decision of the Collector such conclusive effect, yet it cannot be doubted that there is the same presumption in regard to correctness of his ruling upon the question of value as there is the correctness of ruling upon the question of classification.
We do not think that the appellants in the court below introduced sufficient evidence to overthrow this presumption, and the judgment of the court below is accordingly affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the appellant. So ordered."
Lutz & Company was represented by Thomas Colston Kinney who was admitted to the Philippine Bar on April 17, 1903. His co counsel was Arthur F. Odlin who was admitted to the Philippine Bar on January 11, 1905.
The Collector of Customs was represented by Hartford Beaumont who was admitted to the Philippine Bar on October 7, 1908.
When the Americans arrived in the Philippines in 1899, after the signing of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898, many Americans came to the Philippines went to law school (University of the Philippines, which was established by the Americans) and took the Philippine Bar Examinations and actively practiced law.
Americans who were admitted to the Philippine Bar either joined the judiciary by becoming judge to the Court of First Instance or Justices of the Supreme Court while others took private practice. Companies or corporations established by American businessmen naturally hired American lawyers to represent them or act as their legal counsels.