Definition
The criminal offense of moving goods across a border in violation of law, committed in one of two distinct ways: (1) importing or exporting articles that are wholly prohibited by law, regardless of duty; or (2) introducing goods that are lawfully importable into consumption without paying the customs or excise duties legally required. Either mode of commission satisfies the offense. Smuggling may be committed against the customs revenue (duties on imported or exported goods) or the excise revenue (duties on domestic consumption), and the offense is complete whether the goods are being brought into or taken out of the country.
Common Language
Modern common usage (Wiktionary): Present participle and gerund of "smuggle" — to import or export goods secretly, especially to avoid paying customs duties or because the goods are prohibited.
Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): To import or export secretly and contrary to the law; to import or export without paying the duties imposed by law.
The common and legal meanings are unusually close here, but the legal definition introduces a structural distinction the popular understanding collapses: smuggling is not a single offense but two. Carrying prohibited goods and evading lawful duties are separate theories of liability with different elements, different defenses, and different evidentiary requirements. A researcher who treats "smuggling" as a unitary concept in legal sources will miss that distinction.
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
1. Prohibited-goods smuggling: The importation or exportation of merchandise whose movement across the border is unlawful regardless of payment. The contraband character of the goods — not the evasion of duty — is the gravamen.
2. Duty-evasion smuggling: The introduction of otherwise lawful goods into consumption without payment of applicable customs or excise duties. The goods themselves are legal; the wrong is defrauding the revenue.
Why It Matters in Research
The two-theory structure matters enormously when working through historical customs cases. Early sources, including Bouvier, emphasize the fraudulent taking of goods into or out of a country as the definitional core — foregrounding intent to defraud the revenue. Black's (both editions) tracks Wharton's framing, which is broader and makes clear the offense extends to excise as well as customs revenue. Researchers who read only one source may underestimate the scope of conduct historically prosecuted as smuggling.
For corpus researchers, the critical navigational trap is terminological drift. Eighteenth and early nineteenth century materials often use "running goods" or "free trading" as synonyms for what would later be charged as smuggling; "contraband" appears sometimes as a synonym and sometimes as a subset. Treatises and revenue statutes of the same period may use "fraudulent importation" for duty evasion and reserve "smuggling" for prohibited-goods cases, or use both interchangeably. Cross-referencing against the applicable revenue statute is essential to determine which theory governed in any given historical proceeding.
The Bouvier definition, approved by Justice Brewer in 156 U.S. 185 (In re Ah Fong, Ekiu, or a related customs matter — researchers should verify the precise citation in context), provides the foundation for federal judicial construction through the late nineteenth century. Black's tracks Wharton's criminal law framework, which is more procedure-oriented. The two traditions are complementary, not contradictory, but produce different emphases.
Modern federal smuggling law is substantially statutory. The historical common-law definitions in these dictionaries inform the interpretive background but are not themselves operative in contemporary federal prosecutions, which proceed under specific customs, controlled substances, and export control statutes. Researchers bridging historical and modern sources must be alert to this statutory overlay.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's (1st and 2nd editions) and Bouvier reach substantially the same definition from slightly different angles. Bouvier emphasizes the fraudulent character of the taking and the lawful prohibition of the merchandise — a definition that centers on the prohibited-goods theory. Black's, citing Wharton, leads with the revenue-evasion theory and then extends to prohibited articles, making explicit that either customs or excise revenue may be the target. The two definitions are reconcilable: both recognize the dual structure, but each foregrounds a different prong.
Bouvier's citation to 6 Bac. Abr. 258 (Bacon's Abridgment) is the deepest historical anchor among these sources and connects the definition to English revenue law well before American codification. That lineage is useful for researchers working in colonial or early federal materials.
The Rapalje & Lawrence entry retrieved in source materials does not contain a smuggling definition — the passage concerns slander of title and appears to be a cataloging error. Researchers should not expect Rapalje & Lawrence to offer additional definition on this term from the materials indexed here.
Jurisdictional Note
Smuggling is primarily a federal offense in the United States, governed by customs, controlled substances, arms export, and related statutes. State-law smuggling prosecutions exist but are rare and typically address specific regulated goods (alcohol, tobacco) under state revenue schemes. International researchers should note that the duty-evasion and prohibited-goods distinction maps differently across civil-law jurisdictions, where the two theories may be codified as separate offenses with different names.