How the hell did you stumble to that conclusion? That is a complete misinterpretation of what I said. Point of entry is where they were landed and taxed. Upwards of 95% of those taxes were paid in Northern ports. If the goods had been landed in Southern ports then the tariff would have been paid there.
What you are suggesting is that the Northern importer brought the goods to New York, stored them in a warehouse, then brought them out of the warehouse, paid the tariff himself, put them on a ship, and sent them South for delivery. Wouldn't it be far more financially advantageous for him to take them from the warehouse back to the ship, send them South, deliver them to his customer, and let the customer pay the tariff? Even better, if the bulk of imports were destined for Southern consumers to begin with then wouldn't it be better to build those warehouses closer to where the customers actually were?
Point of entry is nothing more than point of entry. Goods may have landed in New York, but the extensive coastal trade is evidence that goods were then shipped elsewhere.
Tariffs may have been paid to the government in New York, but were repaid to the shipper/owner when landed in Southern Ports.
You said it yourself: "the Warehousing Act of 1846. Good landed in New Orleans (or New York, or Philadelphia) and placed in bond could then be sent on to their ultimate customer and the tariff paid at that point"
Or the tariff could be paid anywhere and recollected.
You are purposefully trying to create a picture of import/consumption that does not comport with history.