Ret Onec of Thee Prilippines Veurt of Tax Appeals Qexnon City Bislig Bay Lumber Co., Inc., et al.

RET ONEC OF THEE PRILIPPINES

VEURT OF TAX APPEALS

QexnON CITY

BISLIG BAY LUMBER CO., INC, | | “

-etitioner e

versus CTA CASE NO, 1646 a:

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, |

hited 10 . (

DECISIZ OS ST ad

This is an appeal from & deision of the re-

spondent dated April 26, 1965 (Annex "A," Petition)

affirming the decision of the Collector of Customs

of the port of Tacloban denying petitioner's protests

(Tecloban Protest Cases Bos. 1712) against the

collection of 77,945.00, as wharfage dues on various

exportations of logs. it is asked that respondent

’ be ordered to allow petitioner to eredit said amount

of #7,9%5.00 against its existing or future tax lia-

bility. This case was submitted for decision on the

basis of the pleadings of the parties, and the cus-

toms record, |

“etitioner, a corporation engaged in the busi-

ness of exporting logs, logs, which it

leeded fron its ow prive and on which the

_ total sum.of #7 ,94%5,00 ed and paid as

wharfage dues, ‘Ite p the collection and

payment of vharfage been denied by the

Collector of Customs the port of Tacloban and

later by respondent Commissioner, it anterposed the

DECISION ~

CTA CASE NO, 1646 .

present appeal. e

The only issue raised is whether or not peti- a

tioner is liable for the sum of #7,94%5.00, represent-

ing wharfage Cues on the logs exported abroad and

‘loaded from its private vhort. .

Petitioner anchors the pfesent appeal on the 9 (

reeent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of

Aboitiz Shipping Corp, et al., vase City of Cebu et

@l., G. Ra No, l~14526, Merch 31, 1965, where !t was

held that the right to impose vharfage dues rests on

ownership. Petitioner argues that “wharfage dues’

isa charge for the use af a wharf" seeus now to be

judicially estad2: cheAlna universally accepted,

end that the right to collect rent or.fee for such

use rests on ownership and belongs to the owner,

Accordingly, petitioner concludes, the collection of

the wharfage dues in question has no legal jJustifica-

tion for the reason thet the logs exported were loaded,

not frou govermment-owned wharves, tot from a private

wherf.

* The contention ‘s unte

© of rirst fepression before

c _ cases involving clmiler

Phil... Manufacturing ©

Case No. 13035 March 96%; Caltex (Phil.) Inc.,

Ve Actg. Comr. of » CTA Case No. 1322, Sept.

22, 196%; Philippine Iron Mines Inc. v. The Conr.

of Customs, CTA Case Nos 1270, June 29, 196%, Proc

The ‘ ssue is not

wrt. In previous

Procter & Garble

r, of Customs, CTA

DECISION «

CTA CASE HO, 1646

3

ter & Gamble Philippine Manufseturing Corp., v. Comr.

Customs, CTA Case No. 1384, December 29, 1964),

y cosasaetaemamadin abierenemurnace

the wharfege tues provided for in Zeetions 2801 and

g002 of the Tariff and Customs Code, regardless of

the ownership of the wharf vhere the cargoes were

loaded or unloaded, ‘Thus, in the very recent case

of this Court, Procter & Gamble Philippine Manufse-

turing Corp.. v. Comr., of Customs, STA Case flo, 136%,

Supra, it was held:

wud th regard to the first issue,

Tie ense e~ the decision in

case oF = Customs vs.

L 4115, By tay 29 19 at" ane St that

it is not = a a

£€ te ade Mabie ebay

@ Government wharf es its importe

on its own wharf ee ak not.

rves cr facilities.

“We have decided several cases in

pest involving analogous facts and

reo of the fepnek then of - B- S.

imported articles unloaded on private

wharves. ‘The decision in bar | case of

Commissioner of

Gas & Squipment Co hy

petitioner, is to- the in-

stant cage as therein

ie Seetion 3 of

a law different

herein which are

of the Tariff &

“In ) ime. VSe

rato 9 ° » Ae

where the wes

iisrly situated,

sioner of ¢ Ce T. Ae Case

DECISION «-

CASE NO. 1646

Ho. 1303, March 1%, 196%, we hejds

nica

t such wharfage fee shall

not be levied on erticles

555555

8

in

si3ss

of |

la F346 i *

:

i:

a

:

eigis]

Ee

He

‘le

re Pe

a

eI

ag

is Gaseee anes

ar

,

239

DACISION .

CASE NO, 1646

5

the — of 4 vessel engaged

in foreign trade, based on

the quantity, valent or meag-

ure received or discharged

bf such vessel, and Section

prescribes the rates of

wharfage dues. The law does

not limit liability for the

payment of wharface dues to

Cases where cargo ia loaded or

unloaded on a Government

Therefore, liability for such

dues arises «ven if cargo is dig-

charged on a private wharf

as in the instant case. (bree

ter & Gamble Philippine Menv-

facturing Co. ve Com. of Cus-

toms, C. T. A eo 1303,

March 15, 196%. arien

(Prild ) Ince vs. Acting

Commi r of Customs, ©.T.d.

Case fio. 1322, Sept. 22, 1

:

:

;

2

":

1

Cus-

our

existing teriff and custome lews. cur-

Mote of

ami the

:

:

:

E

i:

=

or}

:

SB

oe

4]

o

@

gs

f

:

:

ard

:

=

Be

i

:

f

=

g

g2h

ae

she

Fe3

i

“

3 ef

|

Hi

tere sife'he? {Se 308 coneroaes

Ole Py

Session 5

ae

e

Speeial J 16, 1956

3266.) itrin. clear Yat’ Congress intend

ed a change or modification the prior

lawe pune chenap wag made

with the view revenue

:

|

by wharfag

on importations unloeded either in Covern~-

ment or private wharves or piers." ‘

238