Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1917 > October 1917 Decisions > G.R. No. L-11717 October 16, 1917 - E. VEIGLEMANN & CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

037 Phil 10:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-11717. October 16, 1917. ]

E. VEIGLEMANN & CO., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Defendant-Appellee.

Beaumont & Tenney for Appellant.

Attorney-General Avaceña for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. REVENUE LAWS; RIGHT OF COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS TO FIX VALUE OF IMPORTS. — The Collector of Customs, in fixing the value of imports, is not limited by the value set our in the invoice. He may use his own knowledge of the values of imports obtained in whatsoever manner he can. He may make an independent investigation for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the value of imported articles. He may reject the value set out in the invoice and assess the imports according to his own judgment, based upon the market value in the country where manufactured and from which the same was exported. The value fixed by the Collector of Customs is conclusive in the absence of affirmative proof showing that he proceeded upon a wrong principle and contrary to law. The burden is upon the importer to show that the appraisement is illegal and unjust.


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


The only question presented by this appeal is whether or not the Collector of Customs correctly appraised the value of 17 cases of cotton laces at L741.11.7, instead of L673.14.8.

It appears from the record that the plaintiff and appellant brought into the Philippines Islands 17 cases of cotton laces invoiced at L673.14.8. The Collector of Customs, in appraising said cotton laces, appraised them at the sum of L741.11.7. The plaintiff paid the duty upon the appraisement by the Collector of Customs under protest. An appeal was taken by the Court of First Instance from the ruling of the Collector of Customs. The Court of First Instance, after hearing the respective parties, confirmed the judgment of the Collector of Customs. From the judgment the plaintiff appealed to this court.

The record shows that the merchandise in question was purchased by Reissmann & Co. and consigned to the appellant. Reissman & Co. were not the manufacturers of said merchandise. The record further shows that Reissmann & Co., for various reasons mentioned in the decision of the Collector of Customs, were able to purchase merchandise, by reason of the reason of the quantity purchased, at a greater rate of discount than the ordinary purchaser. It is the duty of the Collector of Customs to appraise merchandise imported into the Philippine Islands at a price which the average purchaser is required to pay in the country where the goods were purchased. Otherwise, a great injustice and inequality would result among importers of the same class of merchandise. If, for example, one importer, by reason of the quantity of goods purchased, is able to obtain a discount over other purchasers, he should not be given the double advantage of being able to import his goods at a less rate of duty. Imported merchandise should be appraised at a uniform value, and that value should be the value at which all purchasers are able to purchase the same in the country where manufactured and from which it is exported. The Collector of Customs found as a fact that the plaintiff had been able to obtain the merchandise in question in the country where manufactured at a greater discount that the average purchaser and, therefore, added 10 per cent to the valuation given by the appellant. It appears that the Collector of Customs sent a special representative to Europe for the purpose of ascertaining the value of certain merchandise there which was being imported into the Philippine Islands from time to time. Complaint was made by the appellant that the Collector of Customs should not have accepted the report of the special commissioner. Experience evidently has taught collectors of customs that the method adopted here is the only true method for the purpose of ascertaining the value of imported merchandise. It is a rule well established that, in fixing the duty or value of imported articles, the Collector of Customs is not limited to the value set out in the invoice. The Collector of Customs may use his own knowledge of the values obtained in whatsoever manner he can, and may make independent investigation for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the market value of the article imported in the country where it is manufactured and sold. If the Collector of Customs in his opinion finds that the values set out in the invoice are not true he may reject the invoice values assess the merchandise according to his own judgment, based upon proof of what is the real market value in the country where manufactured and from which the same is exported. The rule is also well established that the value of the merchandise fixed by the appraiser and affirmed by the Collector of Customs is conclusive, in the absence of an affirmative showing that the appraiser, in assessing the value, proceeded upon a wrong principle and contrary to law. (Lim Quim v. Collector of Customs, 23 Phil. Rep., 509). Not only may the Collector of Customs fix the value of merchandise, but the burden is upon the importer to overcome the presumption that such appraisement is legal and just. (Erhardt v. Schroeder, 155 U.S., 124).

In order that the importer may recover back the duties paid upon the appraisement of The Collector of Customs he must establish that the action of the Collector of Customs was illegal. (United States v. Ranlett, 172 U.S. 133, 146).

From an examination of the record, we are fully persuaded that the value of the merchandise in question, as fixed by the Collector of Customs, is approximately correct, and, therefore, the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed , with costs. So Ordered.

Arellano, C.J., Araullo, Street, and Malcolm, 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






October-1917 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 11721 October 2, 1917 - ANDRES GRIMALT v. MACARIA V. VELAZQUEZ, ET AL.

    036 Phil 936

  • G.R. No. 10900 October 8, 1917 - IN RE: FELIPE TAMBOCO

    036 Phil 939

  • G.R. No. 11130 October 8, 1917 - BENITO GOLDING v. HIPOLITO BALATBAT

    036 Phil 941

  • G.R. No. 11553 October 8, 1917 - PEDRO N. LIONGSON v. ALFREDO MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    036 Phil 948

  • G.R. No. 11754 October 8, 1917 - AQUILINO CALVO v. CO CANG & CO., ET AL.

    036 Phil 954

  • G.R. No. 11904 October 9, 1917 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. DERHAM BROTHERS, ET AL.

    036 Phil 960

  • G.R. No. 12131 October 10, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. TAN GOY, ET AL.

    036 Phil 974

  • G.R. No. 12834 October 10, 1917 - SEBASTIAN LOZANO v. CARMEN MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    036 Phil 976

  • G.R. No. 13005 October 10, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. AH SING

    036 Phil 978

  • G.R. No. 10571 October 11, 1917 - GLICERIA MARELLA, ET AL. v. ELIAS AGONCILLIO

    036 Phil 982

  • G.R. No. 10193 October 12, 1917 - J. MCMICKING v. PADERN, MORENO, JIMENEZ & CO. (INC.) , ET AL.

    036 Phil 987

  • G.R. No. 12766 October 12, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN VELARDE

    036 Phil 991

  • G.R. No. 10631 October 13, 1917 - MARIA MORTERA DE ECEIZA, ET AL. v. THE WEST OF SCOTLAND INSURANCE OFFICE

    036 Phil 994

  • G.R. No. L-11284 October 13, 1917 - SIMEON BLAS v. VICENTE DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    037 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-12474 October 13, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. MORO ALI AKBAL

    037 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 13107 October 13, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE TENORIO

    037 Phil 7

  • G.R. No. L-11717 October 16, 1917 - E. VEIGLEMANN & CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    037 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. L-12918 October 16, 1917 - MUNICIPALITY OF ANTIPOLO v. FRANCISCO DOMINGO ET AL.

    037 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. L-12399 October 19, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. SERAPION DACQUEL

    037 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-12891 October 19, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. FILOMENO ESTAPIA ET AL.

    037 Phil 17

  • G.R. No. L-11326 October 20, 1917 - SIMEON CASTRO v. TOMAS REYES, ET AL.

    037 Phil 29

  • G.R. No. L-12260 October 20, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. DOROTEA ORTEGA, ET AL.

    037 Phil 32

  • G.R. No. L-12461 October 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. HERMOGENES CASION ET AL.

    037 Phil 36

  • G.R. No. L-12817 October 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIO BAYONA VITOG

    037 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. L-12841 October 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. MACARIO CONCEPCION ET AL.

    037 Phil 48

  • G.R. No. L-12880 October 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO LAO CHUECO

    037 Phil 53

  • G.R. No. L-12963 October 25, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. URBANO DOMEN

    037 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-10618 October 26, 1917 - IN RE: RAFAELA GUZMAN v. JUAN ANOG, ET AL.

    037 Phil 61

  • G.R. No. L-12642 October 26, 1917 - ELEUTERIA CHIONG VELOSO v. MANUEL ROA

    037 Phil 63

  • G.R. No. L-12875 October 26, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. LEOPOLDO ACACIO

    037 Phil 70

  • G.R. No. L-11407 October 30, 1917 - FAUSTO FUBISO, ET AL. v. FLORENTINO E. RIVERA

    037 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-12609 October 30, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. CHAN TIAO, ET AL.

    037 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. 12127 October 13, 1917 - UNITED STATES v. ELADIO CINCO, ET AL.

    042 Phil 839