Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue and Commissioner of Customs

DECISION

b) P5,147,669.00 specific tax paid under protest on December 11,2008, or a total ofP7,758,099.72 all paid to the respondent COC.

Petitioner further prays that respondents Commissioner of Customs (COC) and Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR) be ordered to refund the total amount ofP7,758,099.72 specific taxes, which was erroneously collected form petitioner in connection with its subject importations of assorted liquor and wine for international flight consumption. On June 2, 2015, this Court in Division promulgated its Decision4 (Division Decision), denying petitioner's Petition for Review, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Review is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision of the Third Division ofthis Court in CTA Case No. 8198 dated June 2, 2015, and its Resolution dated September 10, 2015, are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, the Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Philippine Airlines, Inc. is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Let the case be REMANDED to the Court in Division for the determination of the amount of refundable, substantiated excise taxes paid on petitioner's importation of liquors.

showing that the findings of the CT A are completely unsupported by substantial evidence, as in the case, its findings are binding on this Court. Verily, the Court finds no reason to deviate from the CT A En Bane findings. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the CT A En Bane are hereby AFFIRMED.

The Ruling of The Court

The present Petition for Review must be partially granted. As previously mentioned, the Supreme Court, in G.R. No 240532, pursuant to its Resolution, dated March 27, 2019,24 denied respondents CIR and COC's Petition for Review on Certiorari, which assailed the En Bane Decision, and Resolution, dated June 19, 2018, of the CTA En Bane in CTA EB No. 1363, for failure to sufficiently show that the CTA En Bane committed any reversible error in the challenged Decision and Resolution. The Supreme Court thus upheld the Court En Bane's ruling to remand the case for the determination of the substantiated refundable amount of excise taxes paid on petitioner's importation of liquors. Accordingly, the Court shall confine the succeeding discussions on the findings of the Court En Bane and the determination of the above matters as ordered by the Supreme Court and this Court En Bane.

Requisites

in claiming exemption under Section 13 of PD No. 1590 In the En Bane Decision, 25 it was stated that the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of Republic of the Philippines v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) and Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) is unequivocal- Republic Act (RAJ No. 8424 and RA No. 9334 did not amend the exemption granted to PAL under PD No. 1590. As such, petitioner's tax privilege provided under Section 13 of PD No. 1590 has not been repealed or revoked by Section 131 ofthe NIRC of 1997, as amended by Section 6 of RA No. 9334. The matter has already been exhaustively discussed in the Division Decision.26 As ruled therein, the governing law therefore in petitioner's franchise is PD No. 1590, subject however to certain conditions:.,.. 23 Manifestation with attached Amended Genera/Information Sheet, id. at 1950 to 1951. 24 Docket (CTA EB No. 1363)- Vol. 2, pp. 838 to 840. 25 !d. at 734 to 738.

SECTION 13. In consideration of the franchise and rights hereby granted, the grantee shall pay to the Philippine Government during the life of this franchise whichever of subsections (a) and (b) hereunder will result in a lower tax:

(a) The basic corporate income tax based on the grantee's annual net taxable income computed in accordance with the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code; or

(b) A franchise tax of two per cent (2%) of the gross revenues derived by the grantee from all sources, without distinction as to transport or nontransport operations; provided, that with respect to international air- transport service, only the gross passenger, mail, and freight revenues from its outgoing flights shall be subject to this tax. The tax paid by the grantee under either of the above alternatives shall be in lieu of all other taxes, duties, royalties, registration, license, and other fees and charges of any kind, nature, or description, imposed, levied, established, assessed, or collected by any municipal, city, provincial, or national authority or government agency, now or in the future, including but not limited to the following:

(2) All taxes, including compensating taxes, duties, charges, royalties, or fees due on all importations by the grantee of aircraft, engines, equipment, machinery, spare parts, accessories, commissary and catering supplies, aviation gas, fuel, and oil, whether refined or in crude form and other articles, supplies, or materials; provided, that such articles or supplies or materials are importedfor the use of the grantee in its transport and transport operations and other activities incidental thereto and are not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality, or price. (Italics supplied.)

On the basis of the foregoing provision, petitioner must thus comply with the following three requisites in order for the exemption on excise tax to apply, viz:

1. the corporate income tax and VAT liabilities for the subject period of importation was paid;

2. the imported articles, supplies or materials are intended to be used in its transport and non-transport operations and other activities incidental thereto; and

3. the imported articles, supplies or materials are not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality, or pricey -

Page 7 o£16 It must be pointed out this Court, in the Division, Decision, had already ruled that petitioner complied with the first requisite,27 a finding that was later upheld in the En Bane Decision. 28 Thus, the Court shall proceed to discuss petitioner's compliance with the second and third requisites.

Petitioner

was able to show compliance with the second requisite Anent the second requisite, a perusal of the pertinent documents submitted by petitioner, and as found in the En Bane Decision,29 the imported articles were described as "lnflight Materials" under the column "Description of Articles" in the Informal Import Declaration and Entry30 (!IDEs); also, in the Authority to Release Imported Goods31 (ATRIGs) issued by the respondent CIR addressed to respondent COC, it was indicated that "the shipment to be released at the port of Manila consisting of the above described articles, will be used exclusively for international inflight consumption." Such being the case, the said supplies are for the use of petitioner in its transport operations.

Petitioner also complied with the third requisite only insofar as its importation of alcohol products is concerned It must be stressed that it is no longer for this Court in Division to determine compliance by petitioner with the third requisite as the Court En Bane already made a finding on this score, which is already final. Instead, what is left for determination is merely the amount refundable to petitioner. As regards the imported cigarettes, the Court En Bane held that Ms. Capinpin' s testimony, standing alone, sans any credible document, is insufficient to prove that the cost of importing cigarettes is lower than purchasing them locally or that they are not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality, or price.32 Evidently, petitioner fell short in proving the non- availability of imported cigarettes at a reasonable quantity, quality, or price in the local market)..

27 Id. at1718to1722.

28 Docket (CTA EB No. 1363)- Vol. 2, p. 741. 29 !d.

Considering petitioner's failure to prove compliance with the third requisite on its importation of cigarettes, the aforementioned ruling in the En Bane Decision is reiterated. As to the imported liquors, the Court En Bane explicitly stated that the evidence presented by petitioner is sufficient to evaluate that the costs of importing liquors are lower than purchasing them locally :33 Anent the third requisite, to prove that the imported articles were not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality or price, petitioner submitted the Judicial Affidavit of Ms. Cheryl Capinpin, petitioner's Manager for In-flight Materials Purchasing Division, Catering & In-flight Materials Purchasing Sub-Department; the Philippine Wine Merchant Price List; sales invoices issued to petitioner for its purchase of the subject articles, Monthly Philippine Dealing System Rates (2007 to 201 0); 2008 Booking Rates for the Month of May; Letters of Ms. Marianne C. Raymundo, petitioner's Vice-President - Financial Services re: Booking Rates for the Months of January, March, and April 2008; and a Table of Comparison.

The controversy relating to the sufficiency of evidence of PAL to supp011 its refund claim with respect to the third requisite, i.e., the imported miicles are not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality or price, is not of first impression as the same was raised in earlier cases before the Court involving the same parties, albeit relating to different taxable years. In the following cases, the Court found that a Table of Comparison Between Cost of Importing and Cost of Locally Purchasing Commissary and Catering Supplies and the local prices reflected in one price list, i.e., the Philippine Wine Merchants' Price List, were sufficient to establish that the cost of importing the imported articles is lower than purchasing them locally and accordingly granted the claims for refund: In other words, the Court En Bane, in its determination of petitioner's fulfillment of the third requisite, gave evidentiary weight to petitioner's documentary and testimonial evidence relating to its importation of alcohol products. Thus, in compliance with the En Bane Decision34 and the Resolution, dated June 19, 2018,35 as well as the Supreme Court Resolution, dated March 27, 2019,36 in G.R. No. 240532, the same evidence shall be considered in ascertaining the amount of excise tax to be refunded to petitioner in this case.

Records show that the excise taxes paid under protest by petitioner on December 11, 2008 which totaled to !>7,758,099.72 pertain to its importation for the period January 23, 2008, to July 21, 2008, of assorted liquors and winep-- 33 !d. at 741 to 743.

34 Jd. at 731 to 744.

35 Jd. at 811 to 815.

36 !d. at 838 to 840.

constituting its commissary and catering supplies for international flight consumption, detailed as follows:

Informal Air Authority to Sal Amount of

; Import Waypbill/ Release , 1 Valae Excise Taxes No. | Arrival Date Declaration Bill of Imported ‘a Description (in USS) Paid Under

Protest

and Entry*” Lading?® Goods?” pete "“HHHH" 23 January yet " " 28 January ope " w 22 February ha " "

22 March 2008 "M-1"

4 April 2008 "O-1"

I1 April 2008

Vin de Table

Blanc PAL, Vin de Table Rouge 24,967.90 169,999.83

PAL

Ballantine 17 YO

21Y0, Royal Salute & Martell 24,961.68 252,481.74

VSOP

Ballantine 17YO

a |e 46,177.20 | 599,655.57

Chivas Regal

Vin de Table

Blanc PAL, Vin de Table Rouge 25,527.23 169,999.83

PAL

Lindemans

Premier Shiraz

Cabernet, 18,420.24 55,194.75

Penfolds Shiraz

Cabernet

Ua

ye

Al "KKKK"

"AA" "LLLL"

ac) = a}

"BB"

eeu " " oe 9,360.00 78,643.35 "OOOO" | Jack Daniels 14,400.00

Lindemans

"Q-1" "EE" "PPPP" | Premier Selection 4,430.76

Chardonna

Vin de Table

"MMM _ | Blanc PAL, Vin de Table Rouge 26,558.77 169,999.83

PAL

235,146.24 16 April 2008 24,285.69

EL ESE EIEILE

10 | 19 April 2008 321,244.06 oi JW Black Label & Gordons Gin 17,958.25 ° nan " " mn " " " Chivas Regal 21 April 2008 S-1 GG a fee eres 32,382.00 530,156.79 25 April 2008 "Tey" nggsgv | Martini Dry & 2,097.12 3,623.04

Sweet Vermouth

Subtotal (BOC OR No. 1581970247!) 246,841.15 | _2,610,430.71°7

Informal Air Authority to Sales Amount of

=“ ma Waybill/ peace insane Description Value Excise Taxes eclaration mporte (in USS) Paid Under

43 P Protest

"TT" " ' . » | Camus Cognac 1 May 2008 LL-1 TITT VSOP Elegance $4,920.00 146,313.22 Ballantines,

"MM"

"UUUU" | Carlos I, Royal

Salute Whisk

37 Docket — Vol. 2, pp. 1089, 1091, 1093, 1095, 1097, 1099, 1101, 1103, 1105, 1107, 1109, & 1111. 38 Id. at 1090, 1092, 1094, 1096, 1098, 1100, 1102, 1104, 1106, 1108, & 1110; Docket — Vol. 3, p. 1320. 39 Docket — Vol. 2, pp. 1114 to 1125. 40 Td. at 1183 to 1189 & 1192 to 1193; Docket — Vol. 3, pp. 1397 to 1400. 41 Exhibit “V”, Docket — Vol. 1, p. 100. “2 The difference of 70.01 is due to rounding off to the nearest peso. 3 Docket — Vol. 2, pp. 1126, 1128, 1130, 1132, 1134, 1136, 1138, 1140, 1142, 1144, 1146, 1148, 1150, 1152, 1154, & 1156.

“4 Id. at 1127, 1129, 1131, 1133, 1135, 1137, 1139, 1141, 1143, 1145, 1147, 1149, 1151, 1153, 1155, & 1157.

45 Id. at 1159 to 1174.

46 Id. at 1195 to 1197, 1199, &1202 to 1207; Docket — Vol. 3, pp. 1401 to 1404.

12 "HH"

Arrival Date

2 May 2008 "MM-1" "EEE" 539,529.98 33,008.40 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

10 May 2008

"NN"

16 May 2008

"00"

17 May 2008

"PP"

21 May 2008

"QQ"

24 May 2008

"RR"

28 May 2008

"SS"

3 June 2008

"TT"

7 June 2008

"UU"

21 June 2008

"VV"

25 June 2008

11 WW"

9 July 2008

"XX"

10 July 2008

"YY"

18 July 2008

"ZZ"

21 July 2008

"AAA"

"NN-1 "

"FFF"

"00-1"

"GGG"

"PP-1"

"HHH"

"QQ-1 "

"III"

"RR-1 "

"JJJ"

"SS-1"

"KKK"

"TT-l"

"LLL"

"UU-1"

"MMM"

"VV-1"

"NNN"

"WW-1 "

"000"

"XX-I "

"PPP"

"YY-1 "

"QQQ"

"ZZ-1"

"RRR"

"AAA-1 "

"SSS"

"VVVV"

Piper Heidsieck

and Brut, Absolut 759,320.46 "VVVV-

Vodka

32,512.50

I"

"WWW

Remy Martin

164,602.37

W"

VSOP Cognac

8,572.50

"XXXX"

Camus Cognac

149,971.05

VSOP Elegance

6,724.00

Center Merlot

"YYYY"

MRP Rouge &

62,220.06 161 ,338.50

Blanc

Wine Lindemans

Premier Shiraz

"ZZZZ"

Cabernet, 42,457.50

Penfolds Shiraz

11 ,796.00

Cabernet

"AAAA

Johnie Walker

176,947.55

A"

Black Label

8,493.12

Chivas Regal

"BBBBB Scotch Whisky, "

Royal Salute

45,306.00 651 ,877.63 Whisky, Martell

VSOP Cognac

None

Piper Heidsieck

700,533.90

Brut

30,937.50

Denied

JW Black Label,

Exhibits

824,579.48 47

J&B Rare

23,463.17 "EEEEE

Camus Cognac

26,127.36 "

XO Suoerieur

4,200.00

Wine Lindemans

"FFFFF"

Premier Shiraz

9,450.00 38,211.75

Cabernet

"GGGG

Ballantines 17YO

G"

& 21 YO , Carlos 33,528.00 542,730.59

I

None

Camus Cognac

3,657.83

XO Suoerior

30.00

"IIIII"

Camus Cognac

219,469.82

VSOP Elegance

7,380.00 Subtotal (BOC OR No. 15819700648) $322,541 .25 5,147,668.99 49

TOTAL

No

1 $569,382.40 p 7,758,099.72 To determine whether the above listed imported liquor and wine products were not locally available in reasonable quantity, quality, or price, a comparison of the importation costs vis-a-vis the prices provided by the Philippine Wine Merchants (PWM) for the year 2008 is necessary.50 Accordingly, the importation cost per bottle of the subject imported liquors and wine is tabulated below:

Amount of

Ave.

US$ Conve

Excise Taxes

Value

No. of

Purchase

rsion Rate

Description

Paid Under

(in US$)

Bottles

Price Per

Per PDS

Protest

Bottle

51

(in PHP)

(in US$)

Rates

(A)

(8)

(C)

{D=BIC)

(if

Yin de Table

Blanc PAL

70,819.11 10,401 .21 5,004 2.08 40.6260 47 Exhibits "ZZZ" and "ZZZ-1". 48 Exhibit "CCC", Docket- Vol. I, p. 168; Docket - Vol. 2, p. 734. 49 The difference ofPO.O l is due to rounding off to the nearest peso. 50 Exhibit "JJJJJ-2", Docket- Vol. 2, p. 999. 51 Exhibit "JJJJJ-3", id. at 1000. Ave.

Ave.

Total

Purchase

Excise

Importatio

Price Per

Tax Per

n Cost Per

Bottle

Bottle

Bottle

(in PHP)

(in PHP)

(in PHP)

(F=DxE)

{G=AIC)

(H=F+G)

84.44 14.15 98.60

| Subtotal _|_169,999.83 | 24,967.90 | 12012] | Be | comal sama 17YO 31,118.18 5,503.68 Ee | aaa 21YO 55,050.34 | 192 | 192 2 | 46.22 | 40.6260 1,433.29 sos S168 Martell VSOP 87,787.93 | 4,032.00 40.6260 568.7 | Subtotal |_—_—-252,481.74 | 24,961.68 | 804 | 156

Ballantines

17YO 78,643.35 8,467.20 240

3 | Ballantines

21YO 78,643.35 9,360.00 240 39.00 40.4570 1,577.82 327.68

Vin de Table

Rouge PAL 99,180.72 | 14,566.69 7,008 .08 40.6260 84.44 | | . ;

2 Royal Salute $8,525.29 8,874.00 | ;

Subtotal a Blanc PAL

Vin de Table

Rouge PAL

|_| 442,368.86 599,655.57 70,819.11 99,180.72 169,999.83 35.28 6,552.00 28,350.00 11.25 46,177.20 2,520 10,634.22 14,893.01 25,527.23 7,008 12,012 2.13 | 40.4570 46.22 40.6260 1,877.68 . 6 40.4570 41.7560 41.7560 — 14.15 98.60 327.68 1,760.97 1,912.09 2,182.50 873.58 | 327.68 1,755.00 1,905.50 630.68 | 14.15 102.89 102.89 88.74

Subtotal

321,244.06

Lindemans

Primier Shiraz

Cabernet 25,474.50 18,420.24 1,800

Penfords

Shiraz a

Cabernet 29,720.25 2,100 | | Subtotal ~— | 55,194.75 | 18,420.24 | 3,900 | 4.72 41.7560 ei | mans nn] sae] an] ae Blanc PAL 70,819.11 | 11,063.94 5,004 2.21 41,7560 Rouge PAL 99,180.72 | 15,494.83 7,008 2.21 41.7560 Subtotal 169,999.83 21YO 78,643.35 9,360.00 240 39.00 42.2270 1,646.85 327.68 1,974.53 Subtotal 78,643.35 | Jack Daniels 235,146.24 | 14,400.00 240 42.2270 2,533.62 979.78 3,513.40 Subtotal 235,146.24

Lindemans

Premier

Selection

Chardonna 24,285.69 4,430.78 1,716 42.2270 109.03 14.15 123.18 |_| Subtotal || 24,285.69 | 4,430.78 | 1,716 | JW Black | s164 | Label 294,912.58 | 16,560.00 1,680 42.2270 416.24 175.54 591.78 * Gordons Gin 26,331.48 998.25 11 Chivas Regal 442,368.86 | 28,350.00 2,520 11.25 42.2270 475.05 175.54 650.60 Martel VSOP 87,787.93 4,032.00 288 14.00 42.2270 591.18 304.82 896.00 Subtotal 530,156.79 | 32,382.00 | _ 2,808

Martini Dry

12 | & Sweet

Vermouth 3,623.04 2,097.12 1,920 1.09 42.2270 46.12 1.89 48.01 Subtotal 3,623.04 | 2,097.12 1920; | | Total 246,841.1 2,610,430.72 § | 52,644 Amount of Ave. Ave. Ave. Total Excise Taxes Purchase USS Conve Purchase Excise Importatio Value No. of . rsion Rate . or Paid Under in USS Bottl Price Per Per PDS Price Per Tax Per n Cost Per No | Description Protest (in ) onnes Bottle Rates Bottle Bottle (in Bottle (in PHP) in USS a in PHP PHP in PHP (A (D=B/C, E F=DxE) | _(G=A/C) 146,313.22 4,920.00 480 43.8200 449.16 304.82 753.97 Jye 52 53 Exhibit “V”, Docket — Vol. 1, p. 100. Exhibit “JJJJJ-3”, Docket — Vol. 2, p. 1000.

14

IS

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Subtotal

146,313.22

Ballantines

78,643.35

Carlos I

402,361.34

Royal Salute

Whisky

58,525.29

Subtotal

539,529.98

Piper

Heidsieck

Brut

700,533.90

Absolut

Vodka

58,786.56

Subtotal

759,320.46

Remy Martin

VSOP

Cognac

164,602.37

Subtotal

164,602.37

Camus

Cognac

VSOP

Elegance

149,971.05

Subtotal

149,971.05

Canter Merlot

MRP

Bordeaux

Rouge

106, 143.75

Canter Merlot

MRP

Bordeaux

Blanc

55,194.75

Subtotal

161,338.50

Lindemans

Shiraz Cab.

25,474.50

Penfolds

Shiraz Cab.

16,983.00

Subtotal

42,457.50

Johnnie

Walker Black

Label

176,947.55

Subtotal

176,947.55

Chivas Regal

Scotch

Whisky

505,564.42

Royal Salute

Whisky

58,525.29

Martell VSOP

Cognac

87,787.92

Subtotal

651,877.6354

Piper

Heidsieck

Brut

700,533 .90

Subtotal

700,533.90

JW

Black

Label

471 ,860.12

J&B Rare

352,719.36

Subtotal

824,579.48

Camus

Cognac XO

Superieur

26,127.36

Subtotal

26,127.36

Wine

Lindeman's

Shiraz Cab.

38,211.75

Subtotal

38,211.75

Ballantines

17YO

98,304.19

Ballantines

21YO

78,643.35

Carlos I

365,783.04 4,920.00 480 11 ,040.00 240 46.00 43.8200 13,094.40 1,320 9.92 43.8200 8,874.00 192 46.22 43.8200 33,008.40 1,752 30,937.50 1,980 15.63 43.8200 1,575.00 360 4.38 43.8200 32,512.50 2,340 8,572.50 540 15.88 43.8200 8,572.50 540 6,724.00 492 13.67 43.8200 6,724.00 492 62,220.06 2,220.06 11,400 5.46 43.8200 6,300.00 1,800 3.50 43.8200 5,496.00 1,200 4.58 43.8200 1,796.00 3,000 8,493.12 1,008 8.43 43 .8200 8,493.12 1,008 32,400.00 2,880 11.25 44.8960 8,874.00 192 46.22 44.8960 4,032.00 288 14.00 44.8960 45,306.00 3,360 30,937.50 1,980 15.63 44.8960 30,937.50 1,980 23,463.17 2,688 4.84 44.8960 2,160 4.84 44.8960 23,463.17 4,848 4,200.00 120 35.00 44.8960 4,200.00 120 9,450.00 2,700 3.50 44.2100 9,450.00 2,700 10,584.00 300 35.28 44.2100 11 ,040.00 240 46.00 44.2100 11,904.00 1,200 9.92 44.2100 54 The difference ofPO.Ol is due to rounding off to the nearest peso. 2,015.72 327.68 2,343.40 434.69 304.82 739.51 2,025.31 304.82 2,330.12 684.69 353.81 1,038.49 191.71 163.30 355.01 695.64 304.82 I ,000.46 598.87 304.82 903.69 239.17 14.15 253.32 153.37 14.15 167.52 200.70 14.15 214.85 369.21 175.54 544.76 505.08 175.54 680.62 2,075.04 304.82 2,379.86 628.54 304.82 933.36 70 1.50 353.81 1,055.31 217.30 175.54 392.84 217.30 163.30 380.59 I ,571.36 217.73 1,789.09 154.74 14.15 168.89 1,559.73 327.68 I ,887.41 2,033.66 327.68 2,36 1.34 438.56 304.82 743.38

|_| Subtotr | s42.73058°° | 3352800] uo] = | | |

Camus

Superior 3,657.83 30.00 12 2.50 44.2100 110.53 304.82 415.34 || Subtotal |(3,657.83 es 7 a ea ees Se: a 219,469.82 7,380.00 10.25 44.2100 453.15 304.82 757.97 | | Subtotal |__-219,469.82 os a Th a a, as as a Total | 5,147,668.98 ; 5 GRAND be ada 569,382.4 TOTAL See eee For ease of reference, a side-by-side comparison of the importation costs (as computed above) and the prices reflected in the Philippine Wine Merchants (PWM) Price List for the year 2008°° is presented below:

7 Retail Price/Bottle

Amount of Excise 5 5

Deseaiffiien Taxes Paid Under cl Cost Per if Purchased Protest ottle Domestically (Per

PWM Price List for

ear 2008 it Vin de Table Blanc PAL

Ballantines 17YO

3 | Ballantines 21YO

Chivas Regal a | Vin de Table Blanc PAL

Vin de Table Rouge PAL

El

Penfords Shiraz Cabernet $5,194.75 211.37 353.50 fg | Wind tatte Blane PAF, gat) tigi§ 78]

Vin de Table Rouge PAL

Ballantines 21YO

| 8 | Jack Daniels

10 JW Black Label

jar [ChivasRegal____{__saasoa.ge _[_o80.60 | 1,100.00

Martel VSOP

Martini Dry & Sweet Vermouth

Camus Cognac VSOP Elegance

Ballantines

Carlos |

Royal Salute Whisk

15 Piper Heidsieck Brut

Absolut Vodka

| 16 | Remy Martin VSOP Cognac

Camus Cognac VSOP Elegance

+(e | wae | anlage Canter Merlot MRP Bordeaux Blanc 161,338.50 233.52) 353.50 19 | Lindemans Shiraz Cab.

[20 | Johnnie Walker Black Label S| ~Si176,947.55 | 544.76 | 003.00 |

Chivas Regal Scotch Whisk

Royal Salute Whisk

Martell VSOP Cognac

[23 | JwBlackLabel Ss CTCSSCS~*~«TLBGLIZ. S| CCBA | 1,003.00 J yp 35 The difference of P0.01 is due to rounding off to the nearest peso.

56 Exhibit “CCC”, Docket — Vol. 1, p. 168; Docket — Vol. 2, p. 734. 37 The difference of P0.02 is due to rounding off to the nearest peso.

[ [J&eBRae (‘SO OC*rCOC*C‘#S=S24«7I‘NBG ST CC*«éS OSD 863.50 | 24 | CamusCognac XO Superieur | 26,127.86 | s*i«789.09 | «4,200.00 | | 25 | Wine Lindeman's ShirazCab. | 38,211.75 | Cid | (267.50 |

Ballantines 17YO

Ballantines 21YO 78,643.35

Carlos 1

Camus Cognac VSOP Elegance 219,469.82 757.97 1,800.00 |_28 | __| rorat prassoow™ | | Evidently, petitioner complied with the third requisite relative to its importation of liquor and wine products, but only to the extent of the claimed excise tax payment of P6,898,932.51 which were shown to have lower cost per bottle of importation than purchasing them locally, detailed as follows:

7 Retail Price/Bottle

Eni See Importation Cost Per if Purchased

Description Taxes Paid Under Bottle D "

Protest omestically (Per

PWM Price List for

ear 2008 Ride Table ane PA __} PT Ba

Vin de Table Rouge PAL

er Royal Salute | 3 | ChivasRegal ss Ci‘(LSCCC44236886] 30.68 | 1002.00 ma Vin de Table Blanc PAL | s | Lindemans Primier Shiraz Cabernet, Pa * ee 4 Penfords Shiraz Cabernet 55,194.75 211.37 353.50

Ls Vin de Table Blanc PAL

Vin de Table Rouge PAL

|_9 | Lindemans Premier Selection Chardonnay | 24,285.69 [123-18 | 267.500 | [10 [JWBlackLabel — —Cté‘iLC“(‘SSCSSCSCi SB 59.7B | i1,003.00 cn Chivas Regal 12 Martini Dev & Sweet Vermowh __}___3.623.04 1 __ag0) | __an@ | 13 | CamusCognacVSOP Elegance | 146,313.22 | 753.97

Fe | Carlos |

Royal Salute Whisk

| as | Piper Heidsieck Brut

Absolut Vodka

|_16 | Remy Martin VSOP Cognac dT 164,602.37 | 000.47 | 1,485.00 eee [ale Canter Merlot MRP Bordeaux Blanc 161,338.50 253.32 353.50 19 | Lindemans Shiraz Cab.

|_20 | Johnnie Walker BlackLabel | SS SCi*d'706,94755 | 544.76 | 1,003.00 |

a Chivas Regal Scotch Whisk

Royal Salute Whisk

Martell VSOP Cognac

392.84 380.59 [25 | Wine Lindeman's ShirazCab. | SS 88,210.75 | 6BO (267.50 | [26 [Calost CC CC“‘CSC*YLSCONC(CNC‘#S5;«783.04 | 743.38] 1,099.00 | [28 | CamusCognacVSOPElegance | ~S 219,469.82 | 757.97 | 800.00 PE as ae SE Cs ee eT The disallowance of the items listed below is either due to petitioner’s failure to provide information on the retail price per bottle if purchased domestically or upon determination that such domestic price is lower than importation cost per bottle., 59 The difference of P0.02 is due to rounding off to the nearest peso.

PagelS of16

Amount of Excise

Retail Price/Bottle

No

Description

Taxes Paid Under

Importation Cost Per

if Purchased

Protest

Bottle

Domestically (Per

PWM Price List for

year 2008) 2

Ballantines 17YO

51 ,118.18 I ,760.97

None

Ballantines 21 YO

55,050.34 1,912.09

None

3

Ballantines 17YO

78 643.35 1,755.00

None

3

Ballantines 21 YO

78,643.35 I ,905.50

None

7

Ballantines 21 YO

78,643.35 1,974.53

None

8

Jack Daniels

235,146.24 3513.40 920.00 10

Gordons Gin

26,331.48 228.28

None

14

Ballantines

78,643.35 2,343.40

None

26

Ballantines 17YO

98,304.19 1,887.41

None

Ballantines 21 YO

78,643.35 2,361.34

None

TOTAL

p 859,167.18 In sum, only the amount ofP6,898,932.51 constitutes erroneously paid excise tax that is refundable pursuant to Sections 204 and 229(C) of the NIRC of 1997, as amended.

ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, petitioner's claim for refund is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision, dated June 2, 2015 of this Court in Division is AMENDED to read as follows:

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing considerations, the Petition for Review is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent is DIRECTED TO REFUND to petitioner the amount of P6,898,932.51, representing the latter's erroneously paid excise tax on importations of wine and liquor products for its international flight consumption.

MARIARO

WE CONCUR:

C/L. ~ '"4\.._ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN

Associate Justice

ON LEAVE

CORAZON G. FERRER-FLORES

Associate Justice