Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1907 > August 1907 Decisions > G.R. No. L-2839 August 15, 1907 - CALDER & CO. v. UNITED STATES

008 Phil 373:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-2839. August 15, 1907. ]

CALDER & CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellant.

Coudert Brothers, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. TARIFF LAWS; CLASSIFICATION OF MACHINERY FOR EXTRACTING COCOA-NUT OIL. — Machinery for the purpose of extracting cocoanut oil should be classified under paragraph 257 of Act No. 230 of the Philippine Commission and not under paragraph 245.

2. ID.; PORTABLE ENGINE; CLASSIFICATION. — A portable engine should be classified under paragraph 257 of Act No. 230, following the decision in the case of Calder & Co. v. The United States, No. 2837.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


The plaintiff imported into the Philippine Islands forty-three pieces or packages, alleged in the declaration of the importer to constitute an "oil mill complete" for working coprax and other seeds into oil, and a portable steam engine. In the declaration made by the plaintiff, the said steam engine was not declared to be a part of the "oil mill complete." The Collector of Customs classified the said "oil mill complete" and the portable steam engine as "other machinery," under subdivision (b) of paragraph 257 of Act No. 230 1 of the Philippine Commission, at $1 per 100 kilos, not less than 25 per cent ad valorem, instead of as "agricultural machinery and apparatus for pile driving, dredging, hoisting , making or repairing roads, for refrigerating and ice making, for making sugar, preparing rice or hemp and other vegetable products of the Islands for the markets," under paragraph 245, at 25 cents per 100 kilos, gross weight.

The Collector of Customs in deciding the protest held that —

"A machine for extracting oil from the meat of the cocoanut, thereby making of a vegetable product — to wit, cocoanuts — an entirely different article, is not such machinery as is contemplated in paragraph 245 of said act, and can not be classified thereunder.

"The protestors contend that machinery for extracting oil from cocoanuts is as much for preparing vegetable products of the Islands for the markets as is machinery for extracting sugar from sugar cane and that, as sugar-making machinery is dutiable under paragraph 245, machinery for extracting oil from cocoanuts should also be classified under that paragraph. This argument would have considerable force if sugar-making machinery were assessed for duty under the same provision in paragraph 245 under which it is contended that the machinery in question should have been assessed."cralaw virtua1aw library

From this decision of the Collector of Customs the plaintiff appealed to the Court of Customs Appeals, which court held that —

"The portable engine and oil-mill machinery in controversy are properly classified under paragraph 245 of the Tariff Revision Law of 1901 (Act No. 230) and the decision of the Collector of Customs is modified to conform with this finding."cralaw virtua1aw library

From this decision of the Court of Customs Appeals the defendant appealed to this court. The questions presented are:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) Whether the forty-three pieces of one "oil mill complete" for working coprax and other seeds into oil should be classified as" machinery and apparatus for preparing vegetable products of the Islands for the markets:" and

(2) Whether the said portable steam engine which was not declared as a part of the said "oil mill complete" should be classified under paragraph 245 of Act No. 230 or under paragraph 257.

The second question has already been answered by this court in the decision in the case of Calder & Co. v. The United States 1 (5 Off. Gaz., 465). In that decision the court decided that a portable steam engine should be classified under subdivision (b) of paragraph 257 of said Act.

With reference to the first question we are of the opinion and so hold that the forty-three pieces constituting an "oil mill complete for the working of coprax and other seeds into oil" should be classified under subdivision (b) of paragraph 257.

The plaintiff contends that a machine for extracting oil from cocoanuts is machine for preparing vegetable products of the Islands for the markets, arguing that the manufacturing of oil from the meat of the cocoanut no more changes the form of the vegetable product than the making of sugar from sugar cane and that, inasmuch as machinery for the making of sugar is classified under paragraph 245, machinery for the making of oil out of the meat of the cocoanut should also be classified under the same paragraph. It will be noted, however, that the language used in said paragraph 245 is "machinery and apparatus for the making of sugar," while the language relating to the vegetable products of the Islands is "machinery and apparatus for preparing vegetable products," etc.

We are of the opinion and so hold that the machinery and apparatus which extract the oil from the cocoanut and other oil-producing vegetable products of the Philippine Islands is not a machine for preparing the vegetable products for the markets.

It will be noted that the language of said paragraph 245 relating to rice is "preparing rice," etc., for the markets. Suppose, for example, that a person should bring into the Philippine Islands a machine for the making of flour out of rice. The flour, while it is a vegetable product, is no longer rice and is therefore not "rice prepared for the markets." Furthermore, suppose a person should bring into the Philippine Islands a machine for the manufacture of beer out of rice or other vegetable products of the Islands. Could it be contended that the beer was a vegetable product, prepared for the markets, prepared out of rice? It is no longer rice and is therefore not "rice prepared for the markets."cralaw virtua1aw library

If further examples were necessary we might mention corn, for instance. Suppose machinery was brought into the Philippine Islands for the purpose of preparing whisky from corn. Could such machinery be classified under paragraph 245 as apparatus for "preparing vegetable products for the markets?" While it is true that oil extracted from the cocoanut, or flour made from rice, or beer made from the same product, or whisky made from corn, may be regarded as vegetable products, yet they are entirely different from the original, and machinery for the purpose of making these various products can not be classified under paragraph 245, and not being mentioned in other sections of said law must be classified under "other machinery" under paragraph 257.

Therefore the judgment of the lower court is hereby reversed and the decision of the Collector of Customs is hereby affirmed. It is hereby ordered that the cause be remanded to the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila with direction that a judgment be there rendered in accordance herewith. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Willard, and Tracey, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. I Pub. Laws, 607.

1. Page 303, supra.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1907 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3640 August 1, 1907 - CHARLES S. ROBINSON v. CHARLES F. GARRY

    008 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. L-4011 August 1, 1907 - MAMERTA BANAL v. JOSE SAFONT, ET AL.

    008 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-3574 August 2, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. NICOMEDES DE DIOS

    008 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. L-3965 August 2, 1907 - ENRIQUE F. SOMES, ET AL. v. A.S. CROSSFIELD, ET AL.

    008 Phil 283

  • G.R. No. L-3422 August 3, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL SAMONTE

    008 Phil 286

  • G.R. No. L-3576 August 3, 1907 - FLORENCIO TERNATE v. MARIA ANIVERSARIO

    008 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-3841 August 3, 1907 - CHUNG KIAT v. LIM KIO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 297

  • G.R. No. L-2730 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. BASILIO MORALES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-2837 August 7, 1907 - CALDER & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 303

  • G.R. No. L-2838 August 7, 1907 - MACONDRAY & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 305

  • G.R. No. L-3419 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO POLINTAN

    008 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. L-3517 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE MAGNO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 314

  • G.R. No. L-3586 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. HIGINO VELASQUEZ

    008 Phil 321

  • G.R. No. L-3608 August 7, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO FLOIRENDO

    008 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. L-3842 August 7, 1907 - VICTORINO RON, ET AL. v. FELIX MOJICA

    008 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. L-4008 August 7, 1907 - AGUSTIN GARCIA GAVIERES v. WILLIAM ROBINSON, ET AL.

    008 Phil 332

  • G.R. No. L-2836 August 8, 1907 - CALDER & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. L-2840 August 8, 1907 - KUENZLE & STREIFF v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. L-4002 August 8, 1907 - LO PO v. H.B. McCOY

    008 Phil 343

  • G.R. No. L-3507 August 9, 1907 - ISABELO AGUIRRE v. OCCIDENTAL NEGROS, ET AL.

    008 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. L-2841 August 10, 1907 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. L-3488 August 10, 1907 - C.S. ROBINSON, ET AL. v. THE SHIP "ALTA", ET AL.

    008 Phil 355

  • G.R. No. L-3456 August 14, 1907 - JOSEPH N. WOLFSON v. ELIAS REYES, ET AL.

    008 Phil 364

  • G.R. No. L-3529 August 14, 1907 - ESTEBAN GUILLERMO v. RAMON MATIENZO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-2839 August 15, 1907 - CALDER & CO. v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 373

  • G.R. No. L-3562 August 15, 1907 - GUTIERREZ HERMANOS v. ANTONIO VALLEJO

    008 Phil 377

  • G.R. No. L-3363 August 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN CELIS

    008 Phil 378

  • G.R. No. L-3554 August 17, 1907 - JULIANA BENEMERITO v. FERNANDO VELASCO

    008 Phil 381

  • G.R. No. L-3572 August 17, 1907 - S.G. LARSON v. H. BRODEK

    008 Phil 383

  • G.R. No. L-3627 August 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN CELIS

    008 Phil 385

  • G.R. No. L-3664 August 17, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LEONA CINCO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. L-3200 August 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. TOMAS COLOMBRO

    008 Phil 391

  • G.R. No. L-3625 August 19, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN CELIS

    008 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. L-3432 August 20, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. ESTANISLAO GASINGAN

    008 Phil 397

  • G.R. No. L-3567 August 20, 1907 - KAY B. CHANG, ET AL. v. ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE CORPORATION OF LONDON

    008 Phil 399

  • G.R. No. L-3626 August 21, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. JOAQUIN CELIS

    008 Phil 408

  • G.R. No. L-3460 August 22, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. LEON NARVASA, ET AL.

    008 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. L-3557 August 22, 1907 - VICTORIANO GARCIA, ET AL. v. REMIGIO DIAMSON

    008 Phil 414

  • G.R. No. L-3173 August 23, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. MODESTO GARCIA

    008 Phil 416

  • G.R. No. L-3568 August 23, 1907 - ROMAN ESPAÑA v. LEONARDO LUCIDO

    008 Phil 419

  • G.R. No. L-3510 August 24, 1907 - HENRY O’CONNELL v. NARCISO MAYUGA

    008 Phil 422

  • G.R. No. L-3573 August 24, 1907 - HENRY BRODEK v. S.G. LARSON

    008 Phil 425

  • G.R. No. L-3604 August 24, 1907 - INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP. v. FRANCISCO MARTINEZ

    008 Phil 427

  • G.R. No. L-3622 August 26, 1907 - H.W. PEABODY & CO., ET AL. v. PACIFIC EXPORT & LUMBER CO.

    008 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. L-3734 August 26, 1907 - JAMES J. PETERSON v. RAFAEL AZADA

    008 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. L-2871 August 29, 1907 - LA COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. UNITED STATES

    008 Phil 438

  • G.R. No. L-3192 August 29, 1907 - LUISA ALVAREZ v. SHERIFF OF ILOILO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 441

  • G.R. No. L-3458 August 29, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. FIDEL GONZALEZ

    008 Phil 442

  • G.R. No. L-3526 August 29, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. SEVERINO MACAVINTA

    008 Phil 447

  • G.R. No. L-3636 August 29, 1907 - FREDERICK GARFIELD WAITE v. JAMES J. PETERSON, ET AL.

    008 Phil 449

  • G.R. No. L-3547 August 30, 1907 - LORENZA PAEZ v. JOSE BERENGUER

    008 Phil 454

  • G.R. No. L-3628 August 30, 1907 - MANUEL COUTO SORIANO v. BLAS CORTES

    008 Phil 459

  • G.R. No. L-3416 August 31, 1907 - UNITED STATES v. PILAR JAVIER, ET AL.

    008 Phil 462

  • G.R. No. L-3561 August 31, 1907 - RITA GARCIA, ET AL. v. SIMEON BALANAO, ET AL.

    008 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. L-3630 August 31, 1907 - JOS. N. WOLFSON v. CAYETANO CHINCHILLA

    008 Phil 467

  • G.R. No. L-3637 August 31, 1907 - PEDRO P. ROXAS, ET AL. v. ANASTASIO CUEVAS, ET AL.

    008 Phil 469