Procter & Gamble Philippines Manufacturing Corporation, et al. vs. Commissioner of Customs

decision

of res pondent Co mmi s sione r- oJ Cus toms dated Mar·ch 12, 1976 affirming the decision of the Collector of Cus toms of the Po rt of Manila, dated December 13, 1974 which dismissed the protests f i 1 ed by petitioner· Procter 1!~ Gamb 1 e Phi 1 i ppines Manufac tur .. in( l Corporation against the assessment and collection of additional customs duties and ta:·:es plus surcharges on importations of trichlorocarbanilide.

£8 DEC IS I 01\l CTA CASE NO. 2803 2 ~- The ·fa c ts, together with t he i ssu e , as succinctly s t ated by respondent Commi s sio n e r a re as - .:.

'follm'ls:

Re c ords of thi s c a s e r e v e al that three (J) s hipment s of Trichloro - r::: a r ban i 1 i de , to N i t :

50 d r u m s e .~· SIS "Galli" Nith Reg.

No.

1468 .:

60 drum:..• e x SIS "Phil. Rizal" Nith Reg. No. 1948; and 6CJ drum .:;

ex SIS "Tung Ching" Nith Reg. No.

22(:',7 .• con s igned to Pro c ter'~ Gamble Phil. Mfg., arrived at the Port of Manila on various dates.

Upon arrival, the s ubject· s hipment s Nere de c lar e d at the Port oF Manila under Import Entry No ::: .

78279, 97127 and 11 4 8f)7, all :; erie:..:;

o1- .t96 '.'9 .• re s pectively.

· In the sai d import entrie:..• .• t·he declared v a lue o f on e (.t) pound of Trichloro c: arb anilide Nas $ 2 .04. · ..

In the pror:::e:.; :..=:

o1~ appra.i s,:-~.l of th e s aid entrie s for the pu r po se o f determining the cor r e:..:; pond ing du t i e·s and taxes due on the :..:; h .i p m.e n t:..:; , the dec 1 a r e d value in Import Entry No.

78279 Na s inr:::rea:..:;ed to $2.25 per pound by the as:..:;igned Customs Appraiser, a:_:; well a:_:; in Import Entry No :..:; .

97129 and 114807 Nherein the dec:l~red value:..:; of $2.04 per pound Nere increa:..:;ed to $2.90 and $2.25, re:..=:pecti~~ely.

A:..:;

a result of the apprai:..:; 9 ls made by the Custom:_:; Appraiser:..:; concern ··d , di:..:;crepancie s in cu:..:;tom:..:;

dutie:..• and ta . .,.·e:..:;, together Nith :..:;urcharge, re:..:;ulted in the amount:..=:

of P751.(JCI (Entry 7827:'9J, P5,541.(U) (Entry 97129) ancl P912.00 (Entry 114807) Nhicfl Ner e paid by the herein con:_:; i gn f?e un cler Off'icial Receipt Nos.

C13-701CJ2 dated September 19 1 1969, CB-84990 dated December 9, 1969 and CB--98823 dated January 19, 1970, re:..:;pectively.

Said payment s Nere, hoNe~'er, et"fected by the herein con:..:;ignee under · prote:..:;t:..:;

and C£2

DECISION --·

CTA CASE NO . 2803 - ::_::;

docketed at the Port of Nanila as Nanila Protest No s .

4135 (Entry 78279), 4138 (Entry 97129) and 4140 (Entry 114807) on the g r o u n d t h a t the ~~ c1 1 u e o 1~ $ 2 • f) 4 per pound of Trichlorocarbanilide dec lared in the said import entries Nere the correct ~~alue.

Ac ting on the s aid prot es ts, the Collector of Custom s of the Port of Nanila .• in hi:..::

deci:..::i on dated December 13, 1974, dismissed said protests for lack of merit, hence, this appeal. The fa,:t :..-..

ot" this •.: <:i::>e Nere not in di s pute and the only issue to be resolved is the determination of the correct valu e of tr.i c hlorocarbanilide at the t~.· me of exportation f~o~ the countty of origin. Petitioner contends that the value declared in the consular and commercial invoices is the correct hom!? consumption value pur··su ;::mt: to Section 201 of the applicable Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines.

While it .i s t.r·ue that the customs .::l. ppraiser m <:~y n~~ j e~c t the va 1 ue appear- in(] in the consular and commercia l invoices, th~ law express ly requires that there be a reasonable basis for doubting the veracity of .iuch valuation.

Petitioner therefore submits that in disregarding the values appearing in th~·consular and commercial invoices and other- documents pr~esen ted by it, and in imposing his own ~aluation, the a ppraiser acted contrary to law, spe?ci·fically, the CEJ DECISION CTA CASE NO. 280% provisions of Section 201 of the anplicable Tariff oy and Customs Code.

We agree.

Under analogous conditions, the Supreme Court has already ruled in Commissioner of Customs vs. Court of Tax Appeals and Bell Hobart Manufacturing, Inc., G.R. Nos. L-48144-47, June 28, 1988:

ANN NNN XN

The law seems clear and specific. Ft merely calls for ats application as norded. There is no poom for interpretatiran. “The home consumption value or price under this section shall consular, commercial, .

oe Going back to the instant cases, rt should be unequivocally stated, as the records will show, that there was no published value of the subject steel wire rods tecilared or disseminated by responde t, as required by paragraph 3 of Section 202%, discussed above, Clearly, therefore, there was no reasonable doubt entertained by respondent Commissioner of Customs as toa the value or price of the imported steel wire rods declared in the entries; otherwise, as mandated by the law, the correct dutiable value of the Shipments in question should have heen ascertained from reports of the Revenue Attache or Commercial Attache or other Philippine Diplomatic officers and from such other information that may be available to the Bureau of Customs, and DECISION CTA CASE NO. 280% ts, a) from the data gathered, the Commissioner oF Customs should have aszcertained and established the home consumption value of the imported article. Accordingly, under the second paragraph of Seatron 201, supra, the home consumption value or price should be the value oor price declared in the consular, commercial, trade or sales Invoice. Since there is no Fidelity nor compliance of what are required by ‘the legal provwisrons applicable, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, there is no basis therefore Yor the assertion of respondent that the correc! value of the tmpeorted steel wire rods 4: at #3325.00 per metric ton. The terms of the statute provide the safest guide as to the statutory policy, to whieh obedrence rs due and from which deviation rs nat allowable. (fadilia vs. Crty of Pasay, L-B403?, June @F, TPES, 23 SCRA 1349.)

Finally, the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in Commissioner of Customs vs. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 7O6468, July 21, 1987, is apt.

While gt rs true that appraisers of the Bureau of Customs are grven ample leeway in determining the correct customs duties under Section 1405 of the Tariff and Customs Code, Section 2OL af the xame Code, which prescribes the criteria for the determination of the dutitable values oF imported articles, has not been complied with, What Es RON» administrative proceedings are not exempt from the operation oF due process requirement one of which ais that a finding by an, administrative tribunal should be ‘supported by substantial evidence presented at the hearing or at least contained an the records or disclosed ta the parties affected. in on DECISION CTA CASE NO. 200% this case the ‘Alert Notices” (or alleged established values) on which petitioner (Commissioner ef Customs) based iuts re- appraisal were not discfosed during the proceentings before the Bureau of Customs nor presented it evidence befere respondent Court, The re~apprarsal made by petitioner, therefore, can be faulted with arbitrariness ain disregard of the standard of due precess to which all governmental action should conform to Impress upen It the stamp of validity.

Accardingly, the instant petition for review is hereby granted and respondent Commissioner of Customs is ardered to refund to petitioner Frocter & Gamble Philippines Manufacturing Corporation, as a consequence of the re-appraisal, the additional duties and taxes, -tagether with surcharge, paid in the following amounts:

(a) FVSL.00 in Entry No. 7OR79 5

(b) PS,941.00 in Entry No. 971293 and (cq) FP9OLS.OO in Entry No. 224607,

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is reversed. No casts.

$0 ORDERED.

Quezon City, Metro Manila, November 16, 1988.

AMANTE FILLER

“ Fresidind Judge

DECISION =

CTA CASE NO. 2go%

WE CONCUR: /

f / vo ae constante /c. ROAQUIN ASso late Judge

ALE REYES

Associate Judge C &€ RTIdIF teceaATIaN I hereby certify that this decision was reached after due consultation among the members of the Court of Tax Appeals an accordance with Section 12, Article VITI of the Constitution.

Onaaite fied, /

AMANTE FILLER

PreanidiAg Judge - 4 court of Tax Appeals