Caltea Inc., et al. vs. ~ Acting Conmissioner of Customs, et al.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPIN!:8

COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY

CALTEA (PALLIPFINES) INC.,

vetitioner ,

- Versus ~ C.T.A. CASE Nu. 2564

ACTING CONMISSIONER OF

CUSTOMS ,

kes pondent. 3/3195

irs ce weeaeeewewe wa ee FX

VECTIION

This is an avpeal from the decision of respondent

dated September 24, 1973, afl iruing the order of the

Collector of Customs of Manila dutea August <b, 1973,

denying petitioner's claim fer refund in the amount of

4,379.61 paid by it on Deceater 17, 1971, as checking

charges, pursuant to Customs Memorendua urder No. 559-69.

It appears thet on Deceaber 21, 1971, the vessel

o/8 “Gen Carlos® with Registry No. 4201 arrived at the

port of Manila with a cargo of 4,866,237 metric tons

of lubrieating oil] consigned to herein petitioner and

deciarved in application for Jhlpside Permit dated Vecenber

aU, Ly/le Before the arrival of the S.s. “San Carios",

the Collector of Cus.oms of Maniia levied anu collet.ed

in advance the amount of #4%,579.61 as ¢...kin, charges

On said Cargo pursuant to Customs Nemoiandum vrder

Now 55-09, dated Uctober 5, 1969, which was pala under

Official Receipt No. 8136+ on December 17, 1971, ana

liguidated under Voucher No. 61304 on the same date.

petitioner, believing that it igs mot liable for

checking charges, filed with the Collector of Customs

of Mapile a protest (Manila Protest No. 6351) against

CTA Case Noe 2564

2

the imposition and collection of said checking charzes,

put the same was denied vy the Collector of Customs

in his order of August 20, 1973 ami received by peti-~

tioner on August 24, 1973. This order of the Collector

of Customs vas appealed by petitioner to respondent Com

missioner of Customs. tm Uctober 1, 1975, petitioner

received respondent's decision dated Sepienber 24, 1973,

ailirming the order of the Collector of Customs. iicnce,

this appeal.

The only issue to be resolved is whether or not the

impesition and/or collisction of checking charges by

respondent om the lubricating of3 consigned to the peti-

ioner in the amount of #4+,379.61 is legal.

ihe collection of checking charges on lubricating

o4i Crom petitioner was sade pursuant to Custoas Newor.naum

Grder No. $5-69 dated u-tover 5, 1969, which states:

"(G) At the Cash Division, the billing

Cierk together with the Liquidator essigned

thereat from the Management Uverseer Group

eua the representatives of the arrastre

Contractors will compute the amount of

checking charges and prepare the arrastre

blils. ihe special permit shall ba vali-

dated upon payment iy advanes of the cor~

responding checking charges as computed, in

cash or in eertified check by the owner,

importer, cousignee ami/or vreker of the

Cargo subject to refund if it is later veri-

fied that no actual checking services has

been renuered, All payments ln advance

shall be received by the veller designated

for such yurpose by the Chief, cash Division,

and Official Receipts suall be issued for

such payment to be credited te the Portworks

Yuna. A copy of the Official Keceipt and a

copy of the Arrastre Bill shall be forwaraea

by the Gash Divislan to the Internal Audit

» 86

LECILION =

Cla Case Ro. 256%

uervice after payment. MLICHSUNTH Ko

PAYMENT TO .HG ANBASTAB CONTHACTONMS

OF CHBRCKING CHARGES FUR CHELAING SERVI BS

AT SH2 BAY SHALL BE ALLAWAD UR AULHOAIZSL."

(dah. "4" pp. 335-35, CIA rec.)

The coilection of checking charges as embodied in

tne aforesaid Customs Memorandum Grder No. 55-69 is

authorized by Section 3302 of the Tariff and Custoas

Code, wiich provides asa followss

"SOC. j5026 SELF SRE Ea» ~ when any

article is sold or any serv & rendered

by the Sureau of Customs in any matter

fur which a charge may ve collected legally,

no fee therefor having been fined by law,

such charge shall ce om such amount gg may

MoE Oh she adibbeddvset and approved by

Lhe GCepartment heads and the payment of

euch Charge may ve made vy affixing and

Cancelling the documentary customs stamp.”

(Underlining supplied.)

It is apparent from the above quoted provisions

of the law that respondent eon fix by re. uiation or

oruger the amount of checking char,es when the amount

is mot fixed by law. The contention of petitioner

to the effect that there exists no statutory suthority

as a basis for the collection amd imposition of checking

emarges on its lubricating oil is without merit. a

Petitioner further cuntends that the amount paid

as checking charges should be refunded to it ln

eccordance with paragraph 6 of Customs Administrative

vrder No. 95-609, for the reason that there was no

ectual checking service renégered by the Sureau of

Customs, or its arrestre contractor, on the cargo of

ee ty)

DEC AG ivk ™ .

y

luoricating Gil consignea to it. we find petitioner's

contention well teen.

it was established during the hearing thet before

the vessel be3. “San Carlos" arrived at the Port of

Manlio, ihe iuregu of Customs was notified by the ship

agent of such a: rival. Pwtitieoner then prepared an

epplication for shipsice permit supported by a FProe

forme Invuiees anc the same was given to the Lugen

brokerage Cor necessary processing. <Apparentiy, the

preparation of the ship-side permit la necessary before

the arrival of the said vessel because of the condition

provided in peragraph 6 of the Customs Azmorandua order

lin, 55869 wherein the payment in advance of the cheeking

charges is required before a shipsids permit 1s issacd.

Aiter the Veasei had arrived, taree caryo inspectors

headed by MY. Canrade Hendose of the E.Hs Sanderson and

Company bired by the herein petitioner boarded the

vessel for the purpose of checking the quantity of the

ear,o and te deteraine if the lubricating ofl was

Gentawminated «ith foreign elements walle on board the

Vessel. Inspectors of Awd. Del Pan Industries hired» by Her

Bast Molasses also ovarded the Wessel for the same

purpose bul with a view be protect the vessels owner

should @ claia oe filed by a consignee. The said surveyors

Watched the opening of the tank hatehes oy Lhe vessel's

crow, altey which the surveyors asasured the lubricating

oil before the seme was pumped to the lighters and

barges, and again it was measured when already at the

bBULO LUN -

Ci, CaBz NU. 2664

lighters and barges. During all the time that peti-

tioner's surveyors were performing the joo measuring

the said lubricating o11, none of the personnel of the

Bureau of Customs present at the aforesaid vessel ever

perticipated.

The lubricating o11 was then transported te the

Pandeecan Terminal owned by petitioner, and the same was

pumped from the said lighters and barjes to the storage

tenks. At the reniacan “erminal, none of the personnel

of the Jureat of Customs was present durin, the tine

that the said o11 was pumped as well as when the sane

was Measured at the said storage tanks.

we are convinced that no actuai checking services

were ranue.ed by the bureau of Customs personnel from

the time the lubrica-ing 31] loaded on tite vessel 5.5.

“Sen Carlos" arrived at the rort of Manila up te the

time the said lubricating o1] was pumped and measured

at the storage tanks of petitioner iocatea at Pandacan.

it is worth noting, that the only thing that the

persennel of the Bureau of Customs present at the vessel

oe. “Son Carlos” did was to issue a “wat Note” re-

quising the surveyors to take uote of the guantity

loaded on the barge and lighters befvure the lubricating

oil was allowed to be transported to petitioner's terminal

at Pandacan. In other words, respondent edoptea

the findings of petitioner's surveyors. Im the case of

Caltex Philippines Ince, @t ale vs. Delgado Bros ey Inc.

Oo '