Superior Gas & Equipment Co vs. Case No, et al.

DECISION -

C.T.A. CASE NO, 396 “Ze Manila (henceforth referred to as “ATLANTIC GULF", for brevity). At said wharf the carge wes unloaded from the lighters into trucks owned by SUGECU by means of derricx owned anc operated by ATLANTIC GULF, As per Invoice No, 70386 (Exh, “D-1", p. 52, Customs rec.), ATLANTIC GULF charged SUGECO the amount of 782,50 for services of the derrick used in said unloading operations. Sefere the cargo in question could ce unleaded izem the ship, petitioner, thru its customs broker, the Allied urokerage Corp- oration was required to as in fact it did pay on August 23, 1956, whariage fee thereon, which was assessed against it vy the Ceollecter of Customs of Manila at the rate of 2.00 per metric ton, or the total amount of #2,400.W as per Official Aeceipt Ne, 29050 (p. 1l, Customs rec.). This payment was fully liquidated oy the Sureau of Customs under voucher No, 104646, dated Uctever 17, 1956, On October 25, i756, petitioner, ciaiming that pursuant te Republic Act No. 1371 it was exempt from the paywent of wharfage dues on the shipment in question, filed a protest with the Gureau of Customs, After due hearing thereof, the Acting Collector of Customs of Manila rendered a decision denying the protest. Thereupen petitioner appealed this deci- Sion to the Commissioner of Customs, who affirmed the same on June 21, 1957. Consequently, on July 18, 1957 petitioner filed the instant appeal).

204 otf D C.tSl . r •.

E

• 96 - 3 - The only issue 1n the ea • at ar involve• a question of la ana m'y b postulated thus: - Is pe- titioner. pursuant to the pr vis1 ns of epubl1c Act o. 1371 exempt fro~ th4 pa nt of harfa fee& on its portation of dustr~al salt discharge a d delivered sh1psid unto lighters and later un- a pr1vate h rf it out ~ akino uae f th f c11 ties of government wharv s or piers? ' This issue here reVolv • around the ter •wharfage• . as e ployed in .epubl c Act o. 1~71 , the law in force at the t of the u ject porta- tion.

lt 1 the content1on ef petit oner that the erchandiao in quest on hich was unloa ed 1thout aking use f the fecillti a o govern nt • arvea 11 not subject to he pa~ent of wharf ge dues. On the other han • respondent c nten s. that notwlth- - standing the fact that govern ent wharves have not en used 1n the unloading of the u J8Ct i porta- tion. th collection of harfage char ea ther on y the gove~ ent was leg ~ and proper. In supp rt of the latter e ntentton r s ondent argues; - first. that in t his jur1scl1ct1on the ur::>re •· Court. in th case of Philippine ugar entrals gency vs. Collector of usto ' • 51 Ph l . 131, has enlarged the rdinary concept of the ter rtwharfaga•J and ec n , that a strict construction of t e exe pting proviso foun ln ection 3, f epubl1c ct o. l 71, e~cludes tl 1n&tant portation fro the pale of the exe ption 205 ./ - C.T. A. CASE o. 396 - 4 - rantecl therein ..

• flnd res nde t • s vlew n t ·ell taken. lt is true that the upr e Court, in the aforecited ease of fn111pp1ne ar entrals A ency va. ol- lector of Cust • case h ld that wh fage feea ay lega ly b eoll cted n products expor •a fro t • Ph111pp1nei, wh thor r not the f~il t.iea ot overn ..

ent arvea have b en u ed. 1n the exPortation th reo • Ho ever, find thiG rut)1nc; not appllc .ble to the case at bar.

The afore ntS.on decis on is as eel on t prov1slona of vect1on l•. ot t • Philippin Tariff ct of fore the a was a en <i y ect1 n , of pu lie Act o. 1371. • a1ze here that th1a case at res lveo n ccor - anc wlth the rovisionr..

ep llc c • 1 71 the l w enforc at t t of 1 port t1on ere in was e.

ccor 1ng to th xplana~ory ote t ouae ill

o. 401~ . later enec • into epu l~c ct o. l 7 , t purpo • of th 1ll •1• to f x, ef1ne, cl as1fy, re~ulate ~ c s l1date all t.

c rg s nd f s to ~ ~ coll cted in e h111pp1ne ports 1n ~ ping it present cond1t1ons. not nly locally u ol o f the entire hipping orld •• as oeen o aerved in t • trips abr ad by off ~1ala of th Ex cutlve Depar - nt of the over ent nd •l5o o~ th different von &- en. • (p. 2844. Vol. II,

o. 69. Congresslon 1 e- cords, House of epresentatives.) As afor•-quoted. ~06

DECISION «

C.TeA. CASE NO, 396 ~— oe it was the manifest intent of the legislative body in the enactment of Hepublic Act Ne. 1371 to fix, define, classify, regulate and consolidate all the charges and fees to be collected in the Philippine ports in keeping with the universal prectice ac- cepted by the entire shipping world. In other words, ky legislative intent, the teras “wharfage charge” defined in Section 1, of Aepublic Act No. 1371, as “the amount assessed against the carge of a vessel engaged in the foreign trade, based on the quantity, weight or measure received and/or discharged by such vessel" should be given a meaning no different from the universally accepted connotation of the term “wharfage".

4uthorities on hermeneutics, legal and lay, give the fellowing definitions of wharfage, as fol- lows:

“*Wharfage’ is the charge for use of wharf by way of rent or compensation," og Wy ty yt te Pe ¢ 3s Mar ightera e We Luckenbach 5.5. Cor, 248 N.Y. i, 72. ) "*wharfage' is the money paid for Seeeene F°7SS Wate Se longing Ses Sem a «" (Vol. 3, Souvier*s Law Dict. 3d Revision, p. 3450 citing: Secramento

v. The “New World", 4 Cal, 41,) "“*Warfage is the fee or duty paid for the privilege of using « wharf."

(Webster's Unabr New International

Dict. 2nd Ed. p. ne CO) ( Applying the above-quoted universally accepted meaning of the term “wharfage", it would seem that by “wharfage charges" as defined in Section 1 of Republic 207 223 • 396 - 6 ..

~t o. 1371, · our legislators authorized only th levying nd collection f fee • duea r ct.ar9es for the usa o t e fa~ilit1ea of gover nt haxve& or piel'a.

nd to stres thla leg1slat1ve intent ~n avo! t po&s1b111ty that the over- looked r l&a p11e , ur la kers exp~essly ex- empted fr the pa ent of harfa e dues •articles impo.r:ta or unloaded o 1371). / ought into the Philippines icb re I • • o.

rusal of t de 1 at1 na 1n ~ h 11 of Con r••• relative to t t nt of t e a re- ent one ex pting provi o out th f ct th t ongress ally nt nd d to x ~Pt fr t pa ent of u-fa • fees lch o not a ent arvea. r t.tnent portions rel tl n to ortat on of o s or rch n 1 of t fac1l1t1a of gov rn- oted hereunder er th p r• th con ssio a1 procee 1n • 1n ntc Tig~ts nder th en will oe th w rfa fee n s 1p t land at th eo st and do not • u .. of port f c111tl s?

• .Jpea er, t entl n the pr.:&.nc pal etektra ntle an fr hav the floor.

o blon y

• Tible:

fhe bill as n .pose• wh~f g• f•••· o • hat wlll the ah1p pay for w rfa fees lf .f.t loads off t co st and do & not avail itself of ort facilities? 20

DECISION +

C.T.A. CASE NO, 396 os 7 = : There is no wharfage fee on vessels, there is only a whar- fage fee on merchandise, if the vessel is loading merchandise.

wi ale: But there are ships that and unload mexchandise off the coast, Mig, Moreno: That would be smuggling. hetaples In that case what would be fee that the ship would pay?

hs ROE: There is no such provision ause to unload off the coast is illegal.

Mp, Tible: That is actualiy being done.

aE ati: ASsuming thet, it is being » it is being done illegally.

Esthet But this is done with the onsent of port authorities.

Smee rae In that case there are other ! MA na "7A yt & tit i | or Ra my fee should the ship pay is leading on private wharves, lip. Moreno: Only harbor fees.

(Congressional Kecords, House of Aepresen- tatives, Vol. II No. 69, p. 2662; under- scoring supplied.)

The afore-quoted excerpts from the congres- Sional records sustain petitioner's contention that importations of merchandise which de not make use of the facilities ef government wharves or pliers ere i hh ee eee _

DECISION -

C.TeA. CASE NO, 396 not subject to the payment of wharfage charges. Coming to the caee at bar, it is not dis- puted thet the instant importation did not in- volve the use of the facilities of govemnmnent wharves or piers. In fact, it is admitted that the merchandise in question was delivered ship- side beyond the breakwater but within the harbor sea-wall inte lighters which towed the same directly to — wharf at Punta, Sta. Ana, Manila. It appearing thet petitioner in effecting the subject importation did not make use of the facilities of government wharves or piers, the same should not be subject to the payment of whar- fage charges in keeping with the intent of the ex- emption provided for by Republic Act No. 1371, That there has been a change in the phraseology of law on wharfage under Section 2601 of the lariff and Customs Code (Hepublic Act No. 1937) is veside the point, for this law took effect only on July 1, 1957, long after the subject importation was made.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is hereby, reversed, and the respondent Commissioner of Customs is ordered to refund to pe~ titioner Superior Gas & Equipment Co., tie sum of #2,400,00 erroneously collected as wharfaye tees on the latter's iaportation of 1,200 metric tons of industrial salt under Customs Entry No, 0171125, 240

A20

TE egret 6 ee

DECISION -

-9e series of 1956. Without pronouncement as to costs.

Cia

WAR

Presiding Judge