Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > August 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. 4287 August 18, 1908 - PHIL. PRODUCTS CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

011 Phil 107:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4287. August 18, 1908. ]

THE PHILIPPINE PRODUCTS COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Defendant-Appellant.

Attorney-General Araneta for Appellant.

Haussermann, Cohn & Williams for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. TARIFF LAW, MACHINERY AND APPARATUS. — Steel tanks to be used in acocoanut-oil mill were purchased by the plaintiff in the United States and some of them were brought to the Islands in parts. Held, That, for customs purposes they should be assessed under paragraph 245 of the Tariff Revision Law, as amended by the Act of Congress of March 3, 1905, which prescribes the rate of duty upon machinery and apparatus for extracting vegetable oils, although the tanks might be used for some other purpose. (Murphy, Morris & Co. v. U. S., 8 Phil. Rep., 479.)


D E C I S I O N


WILLARD, J. :


Paragraph 245 of the Tariff Law, as amended by the Act of Congress of March 3, 1905, is as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Agricultural machinery and apparatus, machinery and apparatus for pile driving, dredging, hoisting, and making or repairing roads, for refrigerating and ice making, sawmill machinery, machinery and apparatus for extracting vegetable oils and for converting the same into other products, for making sugar, for preparing rice, hemp, and other vegetable products of the Islands for the markets, and detached parts therefor, also traction and portable engines and their boilers adapted to and imported for and with rice-threshing machines, and steam plows, five per centum ad valorem.

"NOTE. — The expression ’preparing vegetable products for the markets,’ shall be taken to mean putting said products in their first marketable condition."cralaw virtua1aw library

After that law went into effect, the plaintiff bought in America steel tanks to be used in its oil mill in Manila. As we understand the evidence, eight of these tanks were imported ready for use. Other tanks were so large that, if put together in America, they could not be placed in the hold of the vessel. For that reason the parts were sent over here and they were put together after their arrival. All of the material so imported was, upon its arrival, placed in the mill of the plaintiff, and has since been, and is now being used therein, and all of it constitutes, a necessary part of a complete oil mill.

When the property was imported, the importers’ declaration stated that it was an additional shipment of apparatus necessary for the extraction of cocoanut oil and putting it in first marketable condition. The collector, however, assessed the tanks that were already set up and the tanks that came in pieces under other paragraphs of the Tariff Act and refused to assess them under paragraph 245. The importer appealed to the Court of First Instance, which reversed the ruling of the collector, and ordered all the material, except six tubs of paint, to be assessed under paragraph 245. From this judgment the Government has appealed.

The view which the collector took of the case is indicated by his ruling upon the fourth item, namely, the steel tanks already set up. He said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"These were properly classified under paragraph 58, and, while doubtless intended for use in an oil mill, are equally susceptible of use for a dozen other purposes. They, therefore, are not intrinsically oil-mill apparatus, nor does it even appear that the predominant use of the tanks of this sort is such as to bring them under paragraph 245."cralaw virtua1aw library

This same contention of the collector was discussed by this court in the case of Murphy, Morris & Co. v. The United States (8 Phil. Rep., 479). It was there said:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The doctrine contended for by the collector of customs that the engine being separated from the threshing machine might be used for some other purpose, and therefore should be classified under a different head, in our opinion is not tenable."cralaw virtua1aw library

That case is decisive of this case and the result is that the judgment of the Court of First Instance is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the Appellant. So ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Carson and Tracey, JJ., concur.




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-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 3837 August 1, 1908 - BENIGNO CATABIAN v. FRANCISCO TUNGCUL

    011 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. 4537 August 1, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BONIFACIO POBRE

    011 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 4381 August 4, 1908 - MANUEL LOPEZ, ET AL. v. RAMON N. OROZCO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. 4498 August 5, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LEOCADIO SALGADO

    011 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 3831 August 6, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CANUTO BUTARDO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 60

  • G.R. No. 4519 August 7, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LORENZO IDON

    011 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 3897 August 10, 1908 - ZACARIAS OMO v. INSULAR GOV’T.

    011 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. 4133 August 10, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO DULFO

    011 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. 4027 August 12, 1908 - JOSEFA GARCIA PASCUAL v. LUIS PALOMAR BALDOVI

    011 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. 4054 August 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GUILLERMO ALVARADO

    011 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. 4032 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARCELO F. CONCEPCION

    011 Phil 90

  • G.R. No. 4141 August 15, 1908 - AGUSTINA FAELNAR, ET AL. v. JACINTA ESCAÑO

    011 Phil 92

  • G.R. No. 4330 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO FENIX

    011 Phil 95

  • G.R. No. 4340 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHESTER A. DAVIS

    011 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 4464 August 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELIPE IDOS

    011 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. 4277 August 18, 1908 - POTENCIANA TABIGUE v. FRANK E. GREEN

    011 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. 4282 August 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHIONG CHUICO

    011 Phil 106

  • G.R. No. 4287 August 18, 1908 - PHIL. PRODUCTS CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    011 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. 4317 August 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SANTIAGO MONTECILLO

    011 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 3818 August 19, 1908 - EDWARD B. MERCHANT v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    011 Phil 116

  • G.R. No. 4223 August 19, 1908 - NICOLAS LUNOD, ET AL. v. HIGINO MENESES

    011 Phil 128

  • G.R. No. 4382 August 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PEDRO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

    011 Phil 133

  • G.R. No. 4468 August 21, 1908 - RUBERT & GUAMIS v. C. A. SMITH

    011 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. 4015 August 24, 1908 - ANGEL JAVELLANA v. JOSE LIM, ET AL.

    011 Phil 141

  • G.R. No. 4390 August 24, 1908 - ANG TOA v. BASILIA ALVAREZ, ET AL.

    011 Phil 146

  • G.R. No. 4365 August 25, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FERNANDO ESTABILLO

    011 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. 4384 August 27, 1908 - SIMEON ALCONABA, ET AL. v. MAGNO ABINEZ

    011 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 4410 August 27, 1908 - URBANO FLORIANO v. ESTEBAN DELGADO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 154

  • G.R. No. 4477 August 27, 1908 - IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MALIGNAD v. BRIGIDA

    011 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 4529 August 27, 1908 - LUISA TENGCO v. VICENTE SANZ

    011 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. 4513 August 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIMON CABONCE

    011 Phil 169

  • G.R. No. 4642 August 28, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIDNEY LEE BAYLEES

    011 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 4383 August 31, 1908 - ZACARIAS BAGSA v. CRISOSTOMO NAGRAMADA

    011 Phil 174

  • G.R. No. 4385 August 31, 1908 - WALTER E. OLSEN v. BERT YEARSLEY

    011 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. 4411 August 31, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RUFINO DELOSO

    011 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. 4689 August 31, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GO TIAO

    011 Phil 183