Repubic of the Philippines Court of Tax Appeals Queeon City. - Litonjua SHIPPING.COMPANY Represent-= Ed by Granexport Corporation as Sub-Agent vs. = Commissioner of Customs

DECISION

Litonjua Shipping Company, represented by Granex- port Corporation as sub-agent, petitioner in these three cases, poses the question before uss whether a vessel engaged in foreign trade, which berths at the privately

DECISIOJ -

CIA CASES NOS ~ 2785, 2831 and 2832 - 2 - owned wharf or pier of the Iligan Bay Express Corpor- ation located at the Port of Kiwalan, is liable to the payment of the berthing charge under Section 2901 of the Tariff and Cust oms Code, as amended by President - i~l Decre e No o 34, which mads :

"SEC. 2901 . Definition.-Berthing charge is the amount assessed against a vessel for mooring or berthing at a pier, wharf , bulk- head- wharf , river or ehannel marginal wharf at any national port in the Philippines ; or for mooring or making fast to a vessel so berthed; or for coming or mooring within any slip, channel, basin, river or canal under the jurisdiction of any national port of the Philippines : Provided , however , That in the last instance, the charge shall be fifty (50%) per cent of rates provided for in cases of piers without cargo shed in the succeeding sections .

The owner, agent, operat or or mas- ter of the vessel is liable for this charge . " Petitioner, contending that the Government's right to collect berthi1g charges is delimited to national QOrt s, and the port of Kiwalan is a municiQal Qort se- parate, distinct and independent of the national port of Iligan, and is not a slip, channel, basin, river or canal under the jurisdiction of the national port of Iligan, protested against the imposition and collection of berthing fees from its vessels by the Collector of

Customs of the City of Iligano

The Collector of Customs

of the port of Iligan denied the pr'otests of pGti tioner. Appeal to r espondent Commissioner of Customs proved un- availing o Hence the present recourse~

DECISION -

CIA CASES NOS . 2785 , 2831 and 2832 - 3 - As narrated by the Collector of Customs of the port of Iligan, the following facts as horne out by the re- cords appear undi~puted:

C. I . A. CASE NO. 2785 That on or about January 7, 1973, the MS "ChozQn A1aru 11 Voy . No . V- 106 berthed at the berthing facilities of the !ligan Bay Express Corporation in Kiwalan , Ili£an City and was assessed in the amount of 'P2, 551 . 00 in berthing fees paid under Official RGc<:.ipt No . 1208384 dated April 17, 1973, and protested per notice of protest dated 1 pril 18 , 1973.

(Protest Noo

004- 73) That on or about April 27, 1973, the MS "Samuel S" Voy . No . 34 berthed at the berth- ing facilities of the Iligan Bay Express Corp- oration in Kiwalan , !ligan City and was as - sessed in the amount of 1"8 , 000. 00 in berthing fees paid under Official eceipt No . 4847317 dated May 9, 1973, and protested per notice of-protest dated May 8, 1973.

(Protest No .

005-73) That on or about May 27 , 1973, the MS

11 Ero 11

Voy . No. 73 berth~d at the berthing facilities

of the Iligan Bay Express Corporation in Kiwa-

lan , Iligan City and was assessed in the amount of :P5 , 000.00 in ber thing fees paid undc::r Of- ficial Receipt No . 4847683 dated June 4, 1973 and protested per notice of protest dated June 11 , 1 9 7 3 • ( Prot est No • 007-7 3 ) , and That on or about June 2, 1973, the MS 11 Mcssinia 11 Voy . No . 4- 73 berthed at the berth- ing facilities of the Iligan Bay Express Corp- oration in Kiwalan , !ligan City and was assessed in the amount of '5, COO. OO in berthing fees paid under Official Receipt No . 4847769 dated June 11, 1973, and protested per notice of protest dated June 11 , 1 9 7 3 • ( Prot e s t No • 008 - 7 3 ) C. I . A. CASE NO. 2831 That the MS "PAVEL RYBIN 11 Voy • . No . 1 berth- ed at Iligan Bay Express Corporation berthing facilities at Kiwalan , Iligan City , on March 22, 1975 to March 26 , 1975 and paid berthing fee in the amount of r4,000.00 under Official Receipt No . 5623301 , dated April 3, 1975 (Pro-

DECISION -

CT

C SLS NOS . 2785 , 2831 and 2832 test No . 05 - 75) .

- 4 - ' '

I

That th e MS "CALl::.DONIA" Voy . No . 43- B berthed Iligan Bay Express Corporation berth- ing fa cilities at Kiwalan , !ligan City on April 26 , 1975 to May 3 , 1975 and paid berthing fee in the amount of P7 , 000. 00 under Official Re- c eipt No . 0339740 dated ·iay 7 , 1975 (Protest No . 06- 75) .

NO. 2832 , That the M/S "LEONIDAS D. " , Voy. No . 42 berthed at the ! ligan Bay Express Corporation berthing facilities at Kiwalan , !ligan City, on May 25 to June 3 , 1975 , and paid berthing fee in the amount of r9 , 000. 00 unccr Off . Rec. No . 0340132 dated June 7 , 1975 .

Inasmuch as these three appeals involve the same par- ti es and raise the same questions , they are consoJidated with only one decision being rendered . In contesting the legality of the imposition and collection of berthing fees , ·petitioner argues that Ki - walan, ~hEre the aforementioned vessels moored and docked , is a municipal port and , therefore , berthing charges should not be collect ed thereat in accordance with the provi- sions of Section 2901 of the Tariff and Customs Code , as amended by Presidential PGcree No . 34 , supra .

Rcspon-

dent , on the other hand, failGd to indicate clearly and unequivocally his position whether Kiwalan is a munici - pal port or a naticnal port in the Philippines .

How-

ever, in brushinc Js ide the stand of petitioner that th~ port of Kiwalan is a muni cipal port, respondent avGrs that undEr Customs AdministrativG Order No . 1-72 dated September 21 , 1971, Kiwalan is within the jurisdiction and territorial limits of the port of Iligan , the orin -

DECISION -

CIA CASES NOS . 2785, 2831 and 2832 - 5 - cipal port of Entry .

And the ColJector of Customs of

the port of Iligan has the power and authority to collect berthing fees from vessels berthed or moored within the jurisdiction and territorial limits of the port of Ili- gan o (Pars . 4 and 5 ~ pecial and Affirmative Defenses of respondent ' s Answer, CIA Case No o 2785 ~) While respondent also alleges as affirmative and special defenses in his answers in CIA Cases Nos . 2831 and 2832 that:

9 . Customs 1\dministrative Order No. 1-72 dated Sep- tember 21 , 1971, clearly defines the collection district of Iligan as comprising the provinces of Lanao del Norte and Lanao del Sur, and all the islands wHhin th0 juris- diction of the said provinces and Kiwalan being a barrio of Iligan City , it is and within its jurisdiction.

More-

over, it is clearly stated thereon that the port of Ili- gan is the principal port of entry ;

10. Kiwalan , being a barrio of Iligan City, is with- in the collection district of the port of Iligan City, hence, the imposition of berthing fees on vessels berth ~ ing o= mooring thereat , as in this case, is proper and legal;

11. Customs 1\dministrative Order No . 1-72 dated September 21 9 1971, provides that the Col lector of Cus- toms of Iligan City , the principal port of entry of the district has the power to collect berthing fees is co- extensive and co-terminous with the territorial and har- bor limits of the port of Iligan;

I ,,

DECISION ~

CIA CASES NOS . 2785 1 2831 and 2832 - 6 -

12. The fact that Kiwalan is not listed as a nat- ional port does not militate against its being already an integral part of the national port of Iligan City . Iligan City is a national port of entry of the district and Kiwalan is part thereof , intact and unseparableo Thus , to list Kiwalan as a national port is not neces - sary ;

Respondent , after petitioner has introduced its evidence and r ested its case (or cases), merely moved during the hearing on February 10, 1978, without offer- ing proof as to the truth of his allegations , that he is submitting the case (casEs) for decision on the basis of the records.

And the records , which consist mainly of the evidence presented by petitioner show that : l o The berthing facilities of Iligan Bay Expres s Corporation at Kiwalan were constructd, i mproved, ope- rated and maintained solely by and at the expense of the Iligan Bay Lxpress Corporation, a private corpor- ation duly organized under the laws of the Philippines and authorized to own , construct, maintain and operate warehouses , loading and uhloading facilities , piers , docks , buildings and works.

2. The berthing ch~s involved in these cases were collected by ~he Collector of Customs of the port of Iligan in Iligan City on vessels of petitioner berthed or moored at the berthing facilities of Iligan Bay Ex- press Corporation at Kiwalan.

DECISION -

CTA CASES NOS . 2785, 2831 and 2832.

- 7 -

3. D uri ~g the time material t o these cases, the dis - trict of Iligan comprised th e provinces of Lanao del Nor- te and Lanao del Sur, and all the islands wit hin the jur- isdiction of the said provinces , in whi ch Iligan City is the pr incipal port of entr y as shown by a copy of

Customs

dministrative Order No. 1-72 dat ed September 21 ~ 1971 of re spondent Commissioner of Cust oms defining the jurisdi ctional limits of Customs coll ection dist r i c ts ~

4. By a l et ter of confirmation dated J anuary 19, 1973 of Acting Deputy Comm is~ i ·:m e r of Cust oms Pedro c. Mendoza , Jr., to petitioner ' s coLlnse l , l iability for berthing f ees und er Sect i ons 2901 t o 2907 of the Tariff and Customs Code of th e ~ i li pp i ne s , as amended by Presidential Decree No. 34, applies only to vessels bErthing or di::ckirig at a pier, wharf , bulk- head- wharf , river or channel marginal wharf at any national port in the Philippines or to any slip, channel, basin , r iver or canal und er and not t o th ose docking or berthing at municipal ports of the Phi lippi nes , including Qrivate oiers or wharves found in sai d munici- Qal ports c

5. In Customs Memorandum Ci r cul ar No. 33- 73 dated March 29 , 1973 .of r espondent Commis sioner of Cust oms ap- pending th e List of National Port s classified through Acts of Congress and Executive Ord Er s as of 1\.pril , 1972, the port of Ki walan ~s not one of thos e classified and listed as national port.

6 o In Cust oms Memorandum Circular No. 47- 73 dated lay 22, 1973 of Act ing Com: .. issioner of Cus toms Pedro c.

DECISION -

CTA CASES NOS o 2785, 2831 and 2832 - 8 - Mendoza, Jr. appending r for information and guidance of all concer ned, a letter of r espondent Commissioner of Customs dated May 4 , 1973 to the Collector of Customs of Iloilo, respondent Commissioner of Customs rul ed that by ~rtue of the amendment of Sect i on 2901 et seqo of the Tariff and Customs Code by Presidential Decree No . 34, i t is now very cl ear that berthing charges shall be col- ,lected only in national ports ; consequently , it appear- ing t hat Ban ago 1.AJharf in Bckolod City is not one of those li st ed as a national port , t he said port should be con- sidered as municipal , pursuant to the provisions of Exe- cutive Order No . 72, series of 1936 . Berthing charges t heref ore may not be collect ed from vessels docking there- at .

7. I n a l etter of the Bureau of Public Works dated December 29, 1972 to petit ioner ' s counsel, confirming the infor mat i on given by t he Division of Port s and Harbors, Por t Kiwalan i n Iligan City i s a municipal port o At- t ached thereto is the list of nati onal ports as classi - fied through J\cts of Congress and Executive Orders as of April 1972, in which the port of Ki walan is not one of those list ed as national port , and the list of municipal port s with existing facilities as of October 1972, in which Kiwalan in Iligan City is l i sted as a municipal port o Since respondent did not rebut or controvert the evidence of petitioner introduced to prove its allegat -

DECISION -

CIA CASES NOS~ 2785 , 2831 and 2832 .... 9 ....

ions , but instead submitted these cases for judgment on the ba si~ of the records which consist principally of petitioner ' s evidence , respondent must be understood to admit the truth of all the material and relevant allega- tions of petitioner , and to rest his motion for judg~ ment on these al l egations as proven by the evidence~ Nonetheless , whatever the dialectics employed , res- pondent ' s contention is , in substance , that Kiwalan is in effect and fo r Customs administrative purposes a "riat- ional port in the Philippines" , since it is within the jurisdiction of the collection district and territorial limits of the national port of Iligan City, then the principal port of entry .

While Kiwalan is not listed as a national port in the Philippines , that is not neces- sary being already an integral part of the territorial limits and collection district of the national port of Iligan City.

The parties do not therefore quarrel with the pro- positi on that liability for berthing charges und er Se c ~ tions 2901 to 2907 of th e Tariff and Customs Code , as a- mended by Presidential Decree No . 34, appli es only to vessels that berth or dock at a pier, wharf, bulk-head~ wharf , river or channel marginal wharf at .illlY,._national port or which come v:c moor within any slip, channel, basin, river or canal unde r the jurisdiction of any nat- ~O~?l port .

Referring to the terms of Section 2901 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No, 34, supra , it is quite clear that the Govern-

DECISION

CIA CASES _ NOS.

2785 ~ 2831 and 2832 - 10 - ~ent 's right to ~ olle c t berthing charges is grounded upon the condition that the vessel be moored or berthed at a pier or wharf , or made f ast to a vessel so berthed, at a national port ; or the slip, channel , basin, river or canal where the vessel 11 came 11 or moored within be under the jurisdiction of any national port of the Phi- lippines., Given the fact that Kiwalan is within the jurisdic- ti on, colle ction district or territorial limits of the port of Iligan, which is classified a s national port of entry through Re¢ublic Act 3615 (1963) and Executive Order Noo 254 ~ series of 1940 (Annex 11 F11 Regue st fo~c Ad- mission) - does that make or convert it (Kiwalan) into a national port , as respondent cont ends, so that the im- position and c oll~ ction of berthing fees on vessels berth- ing or mooring t hereat , as in these cases, is proper and legal tmder the provisions of Sections 2901 - 2907 of the Tariff and Customs Code?

This brings us to the legal basis for the classifi- cation of ports into national ports or into muni cipal ports .

The present law governing t he assessment and col- lection of tariff or c u~om s duties and fees, including berthing charges , Republic Act No o 1937 1 as amended, otherwise known as the Tarif-f and Customs Code cf the Philippines , does not contain a provision on the legal basis for the classificat i on of ports into national or municipal , notwithstanding that under -Sect i on 2901 there-

DECISJ:ON -

CTA CASES NOSo 2785 , 2831 and 2832 - 11 ~ of , as amended by Presidential Decree No o 34, the Gov- ernment ' s right to collect berthing charges is planted upon the condition that the pier or wharf , or slip, channel , basin , riv~r or canal be at or under the juris- diction of QllY_0ational port of the Philippines -

Never-

theless , Executive Order No . 72 , series of 1936, enti- tled "Establishing a Classification of Ports" , contains the following classification :

11 l o National ports . - National ports shall comprise all ports primarily of import- ance to foreign , interisland, and interprovin- cial commerce o ·Other ports which , on account of their geographical locations , arc necessary for enforcing customs r egulations or for nat- ional defen se, may also be classified as nat- ional por t so x x x" (Seco 1, E.O. No . 72, ser- ies of 1936) ..

«3 .

I~ni c ipal port sQ - Municipal ports shall comprise all other ports not classified as national ports o x x x11 (Sec . 3, supra) . And under Section 2 thereof , the executive order clas- sifies and lists particular por t s as national ports.

It

thus result s that a port is a national port if it is clas- sified and list ed as such .

All other ports not clas~ified and listed as national port s are municipal ports in ac- cordance with the explicit pro vis.ion of Section 3 of _Exe:- cutive Order No . 72, series of 1936, supra. As correct - ly pointed out by petition er , this interpretation is supported by respond ent ' s own Customs Memorandum Circul- ar No . 47- 73 which states:

11 It ap!)earing tha·:. Banago l ~harf in Baco- lod City is not one of those listed as a nat-

DECISION -

CTA CASES NOS. 2785, 2831 and 2832 - 12 - ional port, the said port should be con- sidered as municipal, pursuant to the pro- visions of Executive Order No . 72, series of 1936o x x x" (Annex "D" of Request for Admission) .

Of course, the explicit and specific designation and listing of particular ports as national ports orig- inally enumerated in Section 2 of Executive Order No. 72, series of 1936, has been increased through the years by express classification and designation into national ports of those which were previously categorized as mu- nicipal ports , in accordance with the rule contained in the said Executive Order that "municipal ports shall comprise all other ports not classified as national ports ."

( ecticn 3, suprQ) And the classification and designation is done , it is to be stres ed , through le~ gislation, by the passage and approval of Republic Acts, or through amendatory Executive Orders . At all events, it was never done by inferences or implications. For the information· and guidance of all concerned, a complete list of all national ports classified through cts of Congress and xecutive Orders is published in

Customs

~emorandum Circular No.

33~73 dated March 29, 1973 of respondent Commissioner of Customs. ( nnex "C",

Request for

dmis sion.)

nd it is to be emphasized that the port of Kiwalan is not one of those classified and listed thereon as a national porto The net result , therefore, is that the port of Ki- walan has never been classified and designated as a nat -

DECISION -

CTA CASES NOS .

2785 ~ 2831 and 2832 - 13 - ional port by any law ~ eXECUtive order or de cree .

And if we adhere , as we should, to ihe rule c learly and expressly enunciated in Sectioh 3 of Executive Order Noo 72, series of 1936, which has been reenacted in subsequent Acts of Congress and Executive Orders ? that "municipal ports shall compri se all other ports not classifted as national ports" , it must logically and necessarily follow that Kiwalan is a municipal port o The terms of Executive Order No o 72, series of 1936, as subsequently executed and implemented by legislative en- actments and other executive orders , provide the safest guide as to the legal basis for the classification of ports into national and municipal , to which obedience should be due .

The view may be expressed that the im- plementation, or reenactment , of Congress of the basis for the classification of ports laid down in Executive Order No . 72 without any changes is tantamount to le- gislative approval or confirmation of sudh basis for classification.

Anent this, the Bureau of Public Works, in the let- tcr dated December 29 7 1972 of the Assistant Director to petitioner ' s counsel , clas sifies and lists the port of Kiwalan as a mun~tipal port . ( nnex "S" , Request for Admission. )

The classification commands much respect and ·weight since it proceeds from an office of the Gov- ernment called upon to execute and implement laws gov- erning the development anrl expansion of the port and

DECISION -

CTA CASES NOS . 2785, 2831 and 2832 - 14 - harbor facilities of the country 9 In the light of the above ~ we s ee no significance therefore in the stand of respondent ~ as averred as af- firmative and special defenses of his answers , that it is not necessary to list Kiwalan as a national port beire already an -integral part of the national port of the City of Iligan , within its territorial limits, jurisdic- tion or collection district.

Such an assertion , besides being violative of the legal basis for the classification of ports into national or municipal under Executive Order No . 72, series of 1936, as implemented by subseq~nt Re- public Acts and .t::xecutive Orders , would make all ports in t he Philippines national port so port is not clas- sified as a national port just because it is located with- in the territorial limits or boundaries of a city or mun- icipality where a national port is situated, much less wilhin the jurisdiction or collection district of a nat- ional port ;

othen~ise , all ports in the Philippines would be classified as national ports without any municipal ports .

The Tariff and Customs Code , under Section 701 th~re - of , provides in this connection that : SEC . 701 . Collection Districts and Ports of Entry thereof.- For administrative purposes , the Philippines sha l l be divided into as many collection districts as th ~ re are at present existing, the respective limits of which may be changed from time to time by the Commission- er of the Bureau of Customs , upon the approval

DECISION -

CIA CA.")l:.S NOS . 2785 , 2831 and 2832 - 15 - of the department heado The principal ports of entry for the res~ective collection districts shall be ~anila , Su&l , Tabaco , Cebu, Pulupandan , Sia- in, Iloilo , Davao , Legaspi , Zamboanga, Jolo , · parri , Jose PanganibJ~ , Cagayan , Tacloban , San Fernando , Hinigaran , Dumaguete City , Batangas , San Jose , Maasin, Masao , Iligan City , Surigao, Ozamis City , Cabugao , Virac , Batalay , Supang , Gaang , Dagupan City , Bislig , Catbalogan , Dad- iangas , Mariveles , ani 1asbate.

( s amended by Rep o Act No s . 2378 , 3615 , 3643 , 3757, 4432 , 4559 , 4577, 4579 , 4746 , 4768 ~ 4804 , 4811 , 5425 , 5490 and 5703 . )

Thus , for administrative purposes , as correctly st a- ted by petitioner, the entire Philippines has been divid- ed into collection districts, with their rGspcctive prin- cipal ports of entry , for the purpose of delineating the territorial jurisdiction of each Collector of Customs in order to prevent overlapping of functions and author- ity in the coll ecti on of customs duties and administra- tion of cust oms laws .

Customs tdministrative Order No.

1-72 dated September 21 , 1971 , which is entitled as de - fining the jurisdictional limits of customs collection districts , divided the entire Philippines into thirty - four (34) collecti ~n districts.

It bears emphasis that no point or locality in the Philippines is not covered by a collection district, or does not fall within the territorial jurisdi ction or limits of a collection dis - trict , with a principal port of entry which is always a national port properly classified and listed as such by law or executive order.

The District of Iligan is defined in Customs dmi - nistrative Order No . 1- 72 dated September 21 , 1971 of

DECISIGJ -

CIA CASES NOS. 2785 , 2831 and 2832 - 16 - respondent as comprising the provinces of Lanao del Norte and Lanao del Sur, and all the islands within the jurisdiction of the said pr ovinces.

However , under Gus- toms Pnministrative Order No. 1076 dated February 23, 1976 of respondent (Annex "1" of Petitioner ' s Memorandum), superseding Customs Administrative Order No. 1-72? the jurisdictional limits of the Customs ColJection Districts s have been re-defined , reducing the collection districts of the entire Philippines to only twelve (12).

Iligan

was r emov ed as an independent collection district and made to fall within the territorial jurisdiction and col- lection district of Cagayan de Oro.

Again, it is to be stressed that no point or locality in the Philippines is not covered by a collect ion district, or does not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of a collection dis~ trict , with a corresponding principal port of entry which is always a national port properly classified and listed as such by legislation or through executive order. Since all ports in the Philippi~~s, for administra- tive purposes and enforcement of tariff and cu~oms laws, must necessarily b e placed or come within the territorial limits and jurisdiction of a collection district , with its respective principal port of entry which is always a national port properly and legally cla ssifi ed and listed as such by executive order or by legislation, to say therefore that Kiwalan is a national port simply be-

DECISION -

CTA CASES NOS ~ 2785, 2831 and 2832 - 17 ...

c ause it is wi t hin the territorial limits or jurisdic- tion of the collection district oi the national port of Iligan , now Cagayan de Oro ? is to incur in self-contra- diction .

For if we follow the theory of respondent to its logical conclusion, all ports in the Philippines would ~ facto become national ports , without any mun- icipal port s, contrary to the rule expressed in Executive Order No . 72, series of 1936, and succe eding legislationo As has already been discussed and ruled above , a port is a national port of the Philippines if it is ex- plicitly and properly classified and listed as such by Section 2 of Executive Order No o 72, series of 1936, or by subsequent Acts of Congress or executive order s ; other- wise , it is a municipal port in accordance wi t h the clear provisions of Section 3 of said Executive Order No , 72o The port of Kiwalan, not having been classified and designated as a national port of the Philippines by law, executive order or decree , it is therefore a municipal port.

Since liability for berthing charges under Sections 2901 to 2907 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended by ~residential Decree No o 34 1 applies only to vessels bErthed or docked at a pier , wharf, bulk- head- wharf, river or channel marginal wharf at any national port in the Philippines ; or moored within any slip, channel , ' ba- sin, river or canal within the jurisdict ion of any nat- ional port of the PhiliQpines ; and not to those berthing

DECISION -

CT

C ScS NOS . 2785 , 2831 and 2832 - 18 ~ or mooring at municipal ports ; and the port of Kiwalan ~ where petitioner ' s vessels berthed , is a muni c ipal port and not a national port of the Phil ippines ; the Bureau of Customs has no right and authority to collect berth- ing c arges from the vessels of petitioner docked in the private pier of the Iligan Bay Express Corporation locat ~, d at the port of Kiwalan o- In th'e end, we there - fore find the protests of petitioner against the assess- ment and collection of berthing charges f r om the folJow- ing vessels , with the corresponding amount collected, meritorious:

Name of Vessel

Berthing Fees Paid

MS Chozan Maru

2, 551 . 00

MS Samuel S

8 , 000. 00

MS Ero

5,c:oo. oo MS Mess i ni a 5, ooo. 00

MS Pavel Rybin

4 , 000. 00

MS Caledonia

7, 000. 00

Iv1S Leonidas

9 , 000. 00

TOT L

1>40, 551,00 According l y , petitioner Litonjua Shipping Company, repre - sented by Grancxport Corporation as s ub- agent , is enti - tled to the refund of the sum of -40, 551 . 00 representing erroneously collected berthing charges . ·VHEREFORE, the de cisions appealed from are hereby reversed and respondent Commissioner of Customs is ordered to refund to petitioner the amount of · 40, 551. 00. No costs .

I /)

I CO~R :

~

CONSTANTE C

ROA UIN

Associate Judge

.I 19~...--· ---- 1'!

TE

LLER

Acting Presi

Judge