Court of Tax Appeals
0La Perla Cigar & Cigarstte Pactory, et al. vs. Pedro Pacts, et al.
4) PUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
QUEZON CITY
LA PERLA CIGAR & CIGARSTTE CTA CASE NO, 1225
PACTORY,
ASSANDAS CTA CADB NO, 1226
BATAAN | CIGAR @ CIGARETTE CTA CASE NO, 1227
1A SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE CYA CASE NO, 1228
1A PERLA CIGAR & CIOAAETER CTA CASK NO, 1229
e e :
IA DICHA IA PAZ ¥ BUUN CTA CASE NO, 1230
PULLspeTaR AMERICAN CIGAR @ CTA CASE NO, 1239 |
* &
PIONBER TOBACCO CORPORATION CTA CASE NO, 4232
STANDARD CIGANSTTE MPG. CO, += #$CTA CASE NO, 1233 |
OLGA PREIGHT @ CONSTRUCTION CTA CASH NO, 123%
SERVICE z
f
IWTWRMATIONAL TOBACCO COs, THC. CTA CASH RU, 1235 2. |
PIONEER TOBACCO ING, CTA CASE NO, 1236 t
- All versus -
PEDRO PACTS, as Acting Collector ? ae
Ree eeninweeewnenewea &
DECISIOS
These are appeals from a decision of the respondent |
the motion for the immediate execution of certsin |
decisions rendered by his predecessor in office, the |
299
DECISION «
CTA CASES NOS,
5998 $2308 42549 1232)
1233, 123%, 12358 1236
late Collector of Customs Isidro G, Angangeo.
La Perla Cigar & Cigarette Factory, Ince, and
Aseandas filed Protests “os. 159 and 160 (which ere
now cowered by CTA Cases Nos. 1225 and 1226), re-
spectively, with the Collector of Customs of Manila
against the collection net only of 25% of the ordinary
customs duty on certain articles imported from the
United States under the tariff provisions of the
lLaurel-langley Agreement twt also the incremental duty
under Sxecutive Order No. 150, dated December 31, 1955
of the late President “egssysey. After due hesring,
the then Collector of Customs Isidro ©, Angangeo rend-
ered a joint decision dated October 15, 1959 declaring
illegal the collection of customs duties on articles
imported from the United States under the said Agree-
ment as well as the incremental duties provided in
the ssid Exeoutive Order. Accordingly, he ordered the
religquidation of the corresponding customs entries
and authorized the refund of the customs and inecre-
mental duties collected thereon,
With regard to the rest of the protest cases
whigh are now covered by CTA Cases Nos. 1227 to 1236,
the importers subaitted them to the Collector of OCus-
- toms for resolution conformably toe the latter's decision
in Protests Nose 159 and 160, Without further hearing,
- 260
_ Ee ee
DECISION «
CTA CASESHOS.
eee) Vance 1200), taaey
1233, 123, 1235 & 12
3
the then Collector of Customs Angangeo rendered on
Cetober 23, 1960 his decisions tn all those protests
by sustaining the same and incorporating therein his
Gecision in Protest Cases Nos. 159 and 160.
Subsequently, Collector of Customs Angangeo was
considered resigned by order of the President of the
Philippines, effective February 15, 1960, and re-
spondent Acting Collector of Customs Pedro Pacis took
his place. After the relief of “ollector Angangco,
all the importers concerned, who are now the peti-
tloners herein, requested Collector Fecis the immediate
execution of the former Colleetor’s decisions. lcewever,
before the expiration of the statutory period of fifteen
deys within which to appeal the decisions ¢ former Col-
lector Angangeo to the Commissioner of Customs, the Office
eb ie Siete Cenad Dink 0 wetinn Seu ib mainte
sideration of the aforesaid decisions, except the deci-
sions in sowe protest cases that are now covered by C,T.A.
Cases Nos, 1235 and 1236. And within the said period of
fifteen days, Collector Pacis rendered « decision on re~
consideration setting aside the decisions of his pre-
Gecessor and 4enzing the motion for their immediate
execution.
With respect te the protest cases now covered by
C.T.A. Gases Nos. 1235 and 1236, which were not included
in the motion for reconsideration of the ffice of the
261
ong oon
CTA CASHES
id on
; 1en0" 4430" i
1233, | 1235 2 42
»
Solicitor General, Collector Pecis issued formal orders
denying also the motion for the execution of the deci-
‘sions of his predecessor in the said protests, ‘The
Genial is based on the ground, among others, thet ail
the decisions of former Collector Angangeo in those
cases were invalid and of no legal effeet for having
been rendered without authority,
The importers then appealed to the Commissioner of
Customs, asking him te direct the Acting Collector to
execute the decisions of former Collector Angangeo.
Aeting upon the seid appeal, the Commissioner of Customs
instead rendered a joint decision on the swerits in Cus-
toms Cases Nos. 173 andi 17%, formerly Protests Nos. 159
end 160 and now C.T.A. Canes Nos. 1225 and 1226, holding
among others, that former Collector of Customs Angangeo
hed no jurisdiction to declare the Laurel-lengley Agree-
ment invalid and to render Executive Order No. 150 ine
operative. With respect to the other protest cases
(C.TA. Cases Nos, 1227 to 1236), the Commissioner
rendered no decision on the merits for the reason, among
others, that former Collector Angangeo did not conduct
hearings and/or require the presentation of evidence as
to the facts of importation, country of origin of the
articles, payment of duties and other circumstances
whieh were necessary to be considered before refund
could be authorized. lience, the Commissioner proaul-
DECISION «
CTA CASIS NOG,
yeage 1230? daay? 1292"
1233, 123%, 1235 & 1236
ui
gated interlocutory resolutions incorporating therein by
reference his decision in Customs Cases ‘los. 173 and 17%,
remanding the aforesaid protest cases to the Office of the
Aeting Collector of Customs for formal hearings. in all
these cases, however, the Commissioner denied the urgent
motion of the importers for the inaediate execution of
the decisions of Collector Angangco,. tence, these appeals.
The prined pal issue in these cases is whether or
not the decisions of former Collector of Customs of
Manila Igidro ©, Angangco sustaining the protests of the
petitioners and authorizing the refund of the customs and
incremental duties collected on said importations became
final and executory immediately se ag to deprive his
sueeessor in cffiee, Acting Colleetor of Customs fedre
Pacis, of his power toe act on the motion for reconsider-
ation filed by the Office of the Solicitor Genersl and to
bar the Commissioner of Customs from reviewing the deci-
sions or actions of cither or beth former “ollector
Angangeo and “ollectcr "secis, In the sffirmative,
whether or not this Court can compel respondents Con-
missioner of Customs and Acting Collector of Customs to
execute the decisions of former Vollector Angangeo.
In support of their thesis that the decisions of
former Collector of Customs Angangeo sustaining their
protests had become final and executory immediately so
that Collector Paeis is without authority to act on the
1 263
DECISION «
CTA CASESNOS,
1225, 1226, 1227, Hf
1226, 1230, 1231, 1
1233, 1234, 1235 & aaat.
6
motion for reconsideration filed by the Solicitor
General, petitioners anchor their arguments on Section t
3502 of the Tariff and Customs Code, whieh reads as
follewss
502.
vise or
ecision o eau of Customs which
determines the construction or application
of any provision of law customs
duties and which changes any existing
established classification, interpretation
or practice shall not take’ effeet until
after thirty days public notice shall be
iven to the form of a published tariff
ecision. hen such ruling or deeision
favors the taxpayers it shal] become
effective immediately.
It is advanced that if under the above-quoted provisions
the decisions of former Collector Angangeo beeame effect-
ive immediately, it necessarily follows that the motion
for reconsideraticn of such decisions, especially if
filed by the lawyers of the Government like the one in
these cases, is cut of place. Consequently, it was
illegal for respondent Collector Pacis to entertain the
CADBe
At first blush, it would seem that the view of the
petitioners ig tenable, but a perusal of the provisions
of Seetion 3502 will readily show that it is the ruling
er decision of the bureau of Customs, which favors the
taxpayers, which is required te be effective immedicte-
ly. If we are to adhere, as we should, to the commonly
» 264
DECISION -
CTA CASH 103,.
309% 1230) 1234), 1232) 1233" 123) 12354 123.
7 accepted meaning of words in eccordance with settled rules of interpretation, the logical view is that the term “ruling er decision of the Bureau cf Customs” neans the ruling or decision of the Sureau of Customs as headed by the Commissioner and not the ruling or decisicn of a collection district, like “anila, as headed by a Collect~ or cf Customs. Certainly, a ruling or decision of a Collector of one colleetion district, like Manila, which is only one of more than s dozen collection distriets in the Philippines, could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered « ruling or decision of the Bureau of Customs. ‘to say, therefore, that a ruling or decision cof a Collector of Customs is a ruling or deci- sion of the Suresu of Customs is to ignore the unmistakable meaning of plain words. it does not slso cenform to the present set-up of the Sureav of Customs as established by the Tariff and Customs Code.
Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code argues strongly against the position taken by petitioners. It provides that in any case involving the assessment of duties, if the importer fefls to protest the ruling of the Collector, ani the Commissioner is of the opinion that the ruling of the Collector 4s erroneous, the latter may order a reliquidation. Obviously, any ruling of a Collector of Customs whieh is favorable to a tax-
DECISION «
CTA CASES 7“
1209" (4 1231 sts 12335 1234, 1235 & 12 payer is not immediately enforceable, ee contended by petitioners, but ‘s subject te review goty areurio by the Commissioner {f he deems that the action of the Collector is erroneous.
Again, the law provides thet when any new or un- settled question is determined by a Collector, which is not appesled in due course, by the proper party, the Colleetor mst notify the Commissioner of his decision and submit an adequate statement of the facts involved (Sec, 35, Tariff and Customs Cote). The purpose of the law is to eneble the Commissioner to exercise his super- visory power over Collectors of Customs under Section 23150, ( Petitioners insist that based on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Sy Man v. Jacinto, Ge Re Bos 1-§612, Oct. 31, 19535 Ureel v. Court of Tax Appeals and Consuelo Nowl, bs i. Mow 1=10123 and G, it. Noe 110355, April 26, 19573 Ureal v. Court of Tax Appeals ond Jesusa Semeon, U. fi. lo. 1~10165, Auge 3°, 19573 and Acting “ollector of Customs v. Court of Tex Appeals and Commissioner of Customs, G. I. No, i-8811, Set. 31, 1957, the Government has no right of appeal from a decision of the “ollector of Customs or the Ccm- missioner of Customs fevoreble to the taxpayer, ut no-~ where in these cases has the Uevernment appealed from the decisions of the Collector of Customs of Manila, 266
DECISION a
Fog ™ 1228
tees, 226, ’ 9 1229; 1236 1231, 1232 1233, 123%, 1235 & 1236.
9 What merely transpired was thet Collector facis, who succeeded Collector Angangco, reconsidered the decisions rendered by his predecessor and rendered a different ruling, whieh action of “olleetor *"acis is perfectly valid. There is no law which prohibits a new collector of customs to revoke a decision or ruling of his pre- decessor in protest cases, ) ( anent the ergument of the petitioners that the re- spendent Collector Pacis rendered his decision and re- consideration without hearing and, therefore, in vicla- tion ef the due process of clause of the Constitution, suffiee it to state thats "So rule requires that actual w is necessary on e wsotion f for re« s eour ate egy of & mation cote feta 011 the grounte ee ener aan Sere SSS his reasons = 8 o o.'0, Berens Bs eu i056, Pee We ere, therefore, of the opinion thet the decisions of former Collector Angangco in sustaining the protests of petitioners and authorizing the refund of the customs and incremental duties collected on their importations aid not become final and effective immediately, Con- sequentiy, his successor Collector Yecis acted with 267
DECISION « |
CTA CASES NOS, zee? las? 42302, 1232) 1233, 1234, 1235 4 1236 10 lawful authority in (1) taking cognizance of the motion for reconsigeration filed by the ffiee of the Solicitor General, (2) reniering a decision on reconsideration setting aside the decisions of his predecessor which were sought to be reconsidered, and (3) denying the motion for the immediate execution of the said decisions. it follows thet the respondett ‘ommissioner of Customs alse acted within the scope of his power when he (1) rendered a joint decision on the merits in Oustoms Cases Nos. 173 and 17% (formerly ‘rotests ‘os, 159 and 160 and now ©. T. 4. Cases Nose 1225 and 1226), holding, among others, that former -Vollector Angangeo had no authority to declare the laurel-langley Acreement in- valid and unconstitutional, and to render ixecutive Order No. 150 of the late fresident Magsaysay inoperative;
(2) ren@ered no decision on the merits on the protest cases covered by ©. 7. A. Gases on. 1227 to 1236, for the reason, among others, that former Colleetor Ang- angee did not conduct hearings, nor require the presen- tation on the records of the corresponding customs entries covering the different importetions; (3) prosul- gated interlocutory resolutions in the said protest eases covered in ©, 7. 4. Cases hos, 1227 to 1236 incorporating therein by reference hie decision on the merits in Customs Cases Nos. 173 and 17% end renanding these cases to the Office of the Acting Collector of 268
DECISION =
GTA CASES NOS, 1233, 1234, 12310, 1238 1
U
Customs for formal hearings and/or presentation of the records of the pertinent facts and evidence necessary for a complete adjudication of the cases; and (4) denied the urgent motion of all the importers for the inmediate execution of the decisions of former Solleetor Angangeo.
WHEARFORE, a11 the eppeals in the sbove-entitled Cases are hereby dismissed, with costs against peti- tioners.
SO OHDERED, Quezon City, September 30, 1966.
ROMAN M, UMALT )
Presiding Judge
WE CONCURs
fete EH RAMOR Le. AVANCEIA
Associate Judge
«269 a —