EJIPLIM.FC Op N. PBU.A~... Court of Tax A.PPEAL.I Cl\.~Ul'L Cj Fy Planters Products, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs and Commissioner of Internal Revenue

DECISION -

- 2 - The assessments made upon petitioner's import- ation was premised on the classification of Dursban Xylene Mixture under Tariff Heading No. 38.11A with an ad valorem of 20%.

(Exhs. E & E-1.)

It was found out later by petitioner that the Tariff Commission had previously, or on April 18, 1979, issued a ruling classifying Dursban Xylene Mixture under Tariff Heading No. 29.34 with an ad valorem rate of 10% to wit:

"Subject article (DursGan Xylene Mixture) is classifiable under heading Nos. 29.31 which provide for organa- sulphur compounds and 29.34 which pro- vides for other organa-inorganic com- pounds that goods which could be included in two or more of the headings of this chapter are to be classified in the latest of those headings.

I

In view of the foregoing, subject article is classified in heading 29.34 of Presidential Decree No. 1464 otherwise known as t.he Tariff and Customs Code of 1978 . with a rate of duty of 10% ad valorem." Based on said ruling, at an ad valorem rate of 10 %, the duties and taxes that should have been paid by peti- tioner on the above described importation should have been only P634,766.00, instead of ~920,549.00. The actual payment made by the petitioner for duties and taxes is in excess by P285,783.00. 202 - ,. •w x• - 3 - In another importation involving the same commodity by petitioner, the same was subjected to 10 % rate of duty (Exhs. G & G-1) ~ In a note by Atty. Hermogenes Elfante of the Bureau of Customs requesting for the classification of "Dursban Xylene Mixture", the Customs personnel assessed it subse- quently at 10 % rate of duty.

Immediately upon realizing such discrepancy, the petitioner filed claims for refund thereof. (Exhs. I & I-1:

J & J-1:

K & K-1~)

No refund has been granted by petitioner of this overpayment of duties and taxes.

Hence, petitione~ filed the instant petition for review.

Respondent had submitted his case for decision on the basis of the pleadings.

The evidence of peti.- tioner overwhelmingly shows that there was in fact a discrepancy in the payment of ad valorem tax; that -·- --- instead of only ~634,766, it actually paid a total of ~920,549.00, or an excess of ~285,783.00. Hence, we hold that petitioner is entitled to the refund of the sum of ~285,783.00.

20~

- 4 -

WHEREFORE, respondent Commissioner of Customs is hereby ordered to refund to petitioner Planters Products, Inc. the sum of ~285,783.00 without interest. No pronouncement as to costs.

WE CONCUR:

...______

• ROAQUIN

ssociate Judge C E R T I F I C A T I 0 N I hereby certify that this decision was reached after due consultation among the members of the Court of Tax Appeals in accordance with Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution.

204

AMANTE

Presidi g Judge

Court of Tax Appeals