It is not necessary that the hearing thus required in the case of ad valorem taxes should be before a court of justice. The hearing may be had and, in fact, is usually had, before an administrative board whose action in this respect is judicial in character and whose determinations may be final and conclusive in the matter. Thus, for example, by Section 2930 of the Revised Statutes, it is provided that in the matter of appraisement of imports an appeal shall be allowed the importer from the collector of customs to "one discreet and experienced merchant to be associated with one of the general appraisers wherever practicable, or two discreet and experienced merchants," but that "if they shall disagree, the collector shall decide between them; and the appraisement thus determined shall be final and be deemed to be the true value, and the duties shall be levied thereon accordingly." Provision is, however, made for relief in cases where the collectors have acted fraudulently or upon a principle not sanctioned by law, or where they have in any way transcended the powers given them by Congress.

In Hilton v. Merritt89 the constitutionality of these provisions was upheld. In Auffmordt v. Hedden90 the court say: "Nor is there anything in the objection that Section 2930 of the Revised Statutes is unconstitutional in making the decision of the appraisers final, and that the plaintiffs had a right to have the question of the dutiable value of the goods passed upon by a jury. As said before, the government has the right to prescribe the conditions attending the importation of goods upon which it will permit the collector to be sued. One of those conditions is that the appraisal shall be regarded as final; and it has been held by this court, in Arnson v. Murphy (109 U. S. 238; 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 184; 27 L. ed. 920), that the right to bring such a suit is exclusively statutory, and is substituted for any and every common-law right. The action is, to all intents and purposes, with the provision for refunding the money if the importer is successful in the suit, an action against the government for moneys in the treasury. The provision as to the finality of the appraisement is virtually a rule of evidence to be observed in the trial of the suit brought against the collector."

In this case it was held that it was not necessarv, and that it had not been the intention of Congress that the hearing before the appraisers or collector should be characterized by all the formalities of a court of law, but that the proceedings might, and from necessity would generally have to be of a summary character. The court thus held that due process of law had not been denied because the importer or his agent had been practically excluded from the hearing upon the reappraisement, that he had not been permitted to confront the opposing witnesses by testimony on his own behalf, or allowed the aid of counsel. "No government," said the court, "would collect the revenues or perform its necessary functions, if the system contended for by the plaintiffs were to prevail."

89 110 U. S. 97; 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 548; 28 L. ed. 83. 90 137 TJ. S. 310; 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 103; 34 L. ed. 674.