CTA Case No. 4171

DECISION

- 2 - Unde r• Ent~--~ y No.

0 096-86 , peti ti onet~ de c lat~ ed f7(jQ.OO/I'Ifr , the publi s h e d home consumption value <HCIJ> for Dode~ylben ze n e, pe r Revision Ot~d e t~ No.

10, · dated D c tobet~ 1, 198 ~) and Revision Dt' det' No. 1, dated January 2, 1986, in anticipation of an increase a ppt'aisal in accot' dance with Section 1408 af the Tariff and Cu st oms Code a nd avoid the impo~ition of surcha~ge. Petitioner paid the amount of P1,501,500.00 and P3, 156,127.00 a~ customs dUty and internal revenue t£A>Hu, respectiv e ly. It did file a protest however with a claim for refund of P145,282.00 representing an alle~ed e xcess duty resulting from a higher a ppt~aisal, waiving the intet' nal t' evenue ta~ porti o n.

The . Collectot' o f of Batangas di~~issed the protest and denied th e t'e fund and on appeal by the pet it ionet' , the t' e s pond en t Commissioner of Customs affit' med the Collectot"''s decision on May 27, 1987. Follows the instant petition. The recorda show th a t the petitioner entered a thipment of Dodecylbenzene at an HCV of $700.00/MT (published value> vis a vis $630.00/trn ( co m m e t~c i a 1 invoice) t o avo i d " t"' ltn n i n g t he t~ i s k of being - --·-·· ~ Vind Generates ee RY cone ene a teem ent opens te eit ements mane et abr

DECISION —-

CTA ChSE NO. 4171 -~ 3- imposed @ heavy strelaye or seizure under Section 2503 of the Tariff and Customs Code." After having effected the release sans the anticipated penalties, petitioner in a volte-face assailed its own deciared valuation by invoking the commercial invoice value instead, that the first and foremost consideration in ascertaining the HCY of an imported product being the commercial . invoice value. "The dutiable value of an imported article aubject to an ad valorem rate of duty shall be based on the home consumption value or price" which “ghall be the value or price declared in the consular, Gommearelal, trade or sales invoice." (Sec. 201, Tariff and Customs Code.) And here's the rub! petitioner would want to avail of a refund on a different stroke.

Respondent’s wnvarying assertion is that the published HCV of $700.00/MT constituted in the reavision orders and so declared by the petitioner itself for the entry of the imported merchandise WAS the result of a careful and thorough compilation and comparison of invoices for articles of the same nature and kind exported at a particular time and place as hewed close to the statutory mandate that “the correct dutiable value 314 ae DECISION

of the article shall be ascertained from the reports of the Revente Attache or Commercial Attache mx and from otoh other information that may be available to the Bureau of Customs" and from "the date gathered, the Commissioner of Ctstoms shall ascertain and establish the home consumption values of the articles exported to the Philippines and shall publish such lists of values from time to time." (Sec. B01, ibid.) And such appraisal thereon based the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed and must prevail over the commercial invoice value or price. On the same focusing question, “TF customs authorities were bound by the invoice value, it is evident that they would be, to a considerable extent, at the mercy of for@ign merchants and importers." (Coca-Cola Export Corporation v. Cosmissioner of Customs, et al. 56 SCRA 13.) The pronouncement offers no longer an oceasion to further speculate upon which value to base the assessement. We therefore hesitate to fashion an issue into a satisfactorily settled legal situation.

Moreover, this recurring seemingly troubling legal question on the valuation of imported 320 ' 'I . ' ' ..

,.

I ' l ' l ·~ ·' .,, I ·l ',\ '4 ., I .

,, ...

> • j ·.:

' Ht:CISlOt ~ 1 0 CASE NO. 4171 ' r' :'d.l.':IIP in ' tc>n ~· Ot' "-1'\ i n ten or and c it' cums t ances he t ~e in petiti o n e t' l e nding Th a law do es n ut pt' ovide that it i s un l y a f ter~ t he "e s tabli s hed" Ot' "inf ol" ma tion" va H.Ie i s " publi s hed" that such home c onsll.lllpt i on value ma y be the basi s of assessment of the customs duty and t a x e s • 0 n t h e con b' at' y , i t i s expli c itly pt' ovided that upon t'e asonable doubt a s to the acc uracy of the de c lared v a 1 u e o f the at' t i c 1 e i n t h e c on s ul a l'' o t' commerc i a l invoi c e, the Commi ss ioner~ of Custo ms may dete ~ min e its home c osumption val•Je fro111 oth~t' a vailable and mot'e reliable sources . wh ich "est a bli s h e d" ot' " info r m at i on " v a 1 iJ e i s not a pt' e r·· e qui s i t e beforl?

it may , be the ba s i s of the imposition of custom s duty a n cl taxes.

' Convers u ly, its no n- publication is no obstac le to the a ss e s sment o f customs duty and taxes bas~d on such "established" or "infot'mation" va lue.

The publi c ation :l.s i n te nded as nuide in the ass es s menti of fu t ure shipment of &imil ar ar' ticles.

While suc h p u bli s hed value of an a~ti q le is r e li a ble, nevert h e l ess , in th e a b s ence of t he same, the Com missioner of Cu s toms may e s tablish said value fl'' Om othet' sout' ces a s above provided by l a w.

<Co••issioner of Custo•s v. Procter and Ga•ble Philippine Manufacturing Corporation, et al., 169 BCRA 701.)

All told, petitionel'~ aftel'' having defused the impos:l.tion of the h't'essistible legal s anctions 1 by declaring the published va llte of $ 7 00/MT, now starvellingly agitates fo r another v a luation b as ed 3:2-/ DECISION

- 6 - on the c dmrnet~ci al invoice value to avaii of a re'fund as a ggrava t _9 .

eat it to o, s weet en e\·, as ~) It .....______...- so to s tn~al<.

we 11.

wa nts Such This comes as an to have it 5 cake and a quick shuttle of a posture in prying loose from it& own declared v111l•.1ati on is somethin g of a convoluted expedient d~nouem e nt that is hot entirely justified. not to confuse the bi r c umstances that might be but aft t h e y act u a 1 1 y we t' e at t h e t i m e o f en t t~ y • We therefore distt~ust the logic that leads to such a ,~:hy.

No matter how petitioner harps and tinkers with the idea of he:wing thll!

revision rendered inutile, the basic fact t' emains that the import and force of such published values subsists precisely as then contemplated to the extent that the value infot' mation can validly be located. "It i• to be stressed that the Commissioner of Customs i• requit'ed by law to publish such l ist of values from time to time.

He does not only have to ascet~tain and establi'sh the home consumption value, but must also publish si..tch lists of values ft'om time to time.

Public policy would seem to require that impor, tet,s be infot~med in advance of the home con•umption values exported to the

DECISION -

Philippines. This would prevent uncertainty, let Alone the exercise of purely personal discretion, specially on the part of customs appraiser, in the matter of ascertainment and determination of the price or value of imported articles, Furthermore, 1f importers are informed in advance of the home cosunption ‘values or information values of article’?s exported to the Philippines, they can properly declare the dutiable values of their shipwente and thus avoid the heavy penalties imposed for misdeclaration, if not delays in the release of goods from the customs custody which entail loss of time, money and energy. (Bell Hobart Manufacturing Incorporated Ve Commissioner of Customs, CTA Cases Nos. 2750,2751,2752 and 2753, March 10, 1978; Procter & Gamble PMC Ve Commissioner, CTA Case No. 2357 3 cited in Commissioner of Customs v. Procter & Gamble Phil. Mfg. Corp. 169 SCRA 699.)

And neither do we think that the consular invoice was intended to discombobulate the effective application of the published value as "such valuation is presumed to be correct” and therefore conclusive in the absence of fraud or illegality of an affirmative showing by pratesting 323

(HEUTE SIGH

MTA OMS TO, Aled \ iatyparetem that Cle cits cems anbbeartbies ih bbe inip or mGeoGoduay bie vabae oe. the tipormbabian oF proceeded tO ek wrRONy pNTane ape anc Caaibrery ba law."

(Commissioner of Custows ve. Court of Tax Appeals and NCR (Philipppines), G.R. No. L-48027, March ti, 1991, Citing Cotcar-cola Export Corporation Ve Commissigner of Internal Revenue, 56, SCRA S&S.)

We clad bh te Toes ¢feur recperbaing the Full and eowpe ld) tan dGmporkb of tlie ¢babutbe shromtad we grant rorther cxoepbdom tute it.

Pebibdomer cehrak brave the eal at lagkh viorlils.

ACCORDINGLY, petstbion is hereby dismissed with casts ayinst petitioner.

80 ORDERED.

Quoeecan OChby, Water tod lay Ougeaeh de, 1a94, Avy)

2. REYES Mifegdtding Sudye

WE CONCUR:

(un leave) CONSTANTE ©. ROAQUIN Asuooiate Juciye Ce 2. Qn ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Agticowlatbe ducye 2 3.24