Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > December 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. 4497 December 16, 1908 - SPRUNGLI & CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

012 Phil 257:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4497. December 16, 1908. ]

SPRUNGLI & CO., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Defendant-Appellee.

Haussermann, Cohn & Williams, for Appellants.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. TARRIFF LAWS; OILCLOTH SHOES; RULE OF ASSIMILATION. — The plaintiff company claimed that shoes made of oilcloth should have been classified by the Collector of Customs, under paragraph 349 (c) of the Tariff Revision Law of 1901, as oilcloth manufactured into wearing apparel, rather than under paragraph 222 in connection with rule 15: Held, That "oilcloth manufactured into wearing apparel’’ does not include shoes, although the latter are destined for human wear, and that, by applying the rule of assimilation, No. 15, the shoes were properly assimilated by the Collector to patent leather which they resemble and of which they are but an imitation.


D E C I S I O N


TRACEY, J. :


This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, affirming a decision of the Collector of Customs, holding that certain imported shoes made of lacquered canvas so as to closely resemble patent leather were properly classed as imitation patent leather under paragraph 222 of the Customs Law of 1901 1 in connection with rule 15, rather than as oilcloth shoes under paragraph 349 (c), which enumerates "oilcloth manufactured into wearing apparel."cralaw virtua1aw library

This is the sole contention of the appellants, who do not claim that they should have been classified under paragraph 221 as "shoes of cowhide and similar leather and canvas," a classification long ago rejected by the Collector and the Court of Customs Appeals in a decision put in evidence in this case.

Although, under certain circumstances, shoes may be included in the general term "wearing apparel," yet when applying the Customs Law where articles are minutely distinguished and classified according to their material and nature, it can not be understood that any such indefinite phraseology was intended. To the technical as well as to the common understanding, "oilcloth manufactured into wearing apparel" does not include shoes, although they are destined to human wear, nor are they covered by subdivision (d) of the same section which treats of oilcloths in the words "other, including linoleum," which is manifestly quite a different condition of oilcloths from that here indicated.

It was held that they were not properly grouped under paragraph 221 as shoes "of canvas" for the reason that they were not of simple canvas, the appearance and use of which are radically changed by treatment with lacquer. Nor did they fall directly under paragraph 221, which excludes "shoes of patent and similar leather." There was therefore no paragraph of the Tariff Act literally describing them so that it became proper to apply rule 15, known as the rule of assimilation, which reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That each and every imported article not enumerated in this Act, which is similar, either in material, quality, texture, or the use to which it may be applied, to any article enumerated in this Act as chargeable with duty, shall pay the same rate of duty which is levied on the enumerated article which it most resembles in any of the particulars before mentioned; . . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

In applying that rule the court below and the Collector of Customs committed no error. It can hardly be said that, because shoes as such, without qualification, are not enumerated in the Act, this rule may not be applied in case of oilcloth shoes so as to assimilate them to patent leather shoes which they most resemble and of which indeed they are but an imitation.

The judgment of the Court of First Instance is affirmed, with the costs of this instance. So ordered.

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

Willard, J., dissents.

Endnotes:



1. Act No. 230, 1 Pub. Laws, 581.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





December-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 3391 December 1, 1908 - JUAN N. PASAPORTE v. DOMINGO MARIN

    012 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. 3639 December 1, 1908 - RAMON M. DE VIADEMONTE v. M. G. GAVIERES

    012 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 4797 December 1, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. GELASIO CASTELLON, ET AL.

    012 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 4448 December 3, 1908 - ANGEL GUSTILO, ET AL. v. JUAN ARANETA

    012 Phil 167

  • G.R. No. 4292 December 4, 1908 - ARCADIO MAXILOM v. FELIX ESTRELLA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 170

  • G.R. No. 4490 December 4, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. FELICIANO DIVINO

    012 Phil 175

  • G.R. No. 4069 December 5, 1908 - ESTATE OF LUIS GAMBOA CARPIZO v. ROBERTO FLORANZA

    012 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. 4603 December 5, 1908 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ALFREDO JEANJAQUET

    012 Phil 195

  • G.R. No. 4682 December 9, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. J. BRAGA

    012 Phil 202

  • G.R. No. 4696 December 9, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PIO VY GUICO

    012 Phil 209

  • G.R. No. 4690 December 10, 1908 - TEODORO M. BEECH v. JUANA JIMENEZ, ET AL.

    012 Phil 212

  • G.R. No. 4240 December 11, 1908 - C. E. HELVIE v. F. M. FARMER, ET AL.

    012 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. 4695 December 12, 1908 - NICOMEDES IBAÑES v. ROMAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC CHURCH, ET AL.

    012 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. 4504 December 15, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. EL CHINO CUNA

    012 Phil 241

  • G.R. No. 4416 December 16, 1908 - MODESTO ACUÑA CO CHONGCO v. EL CHINO DIEVAS

    012 Phil 250

  • G.R. No. 4497 December 16, 1908 - SPRUNGLI & CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    012 Phil 257

  • G.R. No. 4888 December 16, 1908 - J. C. CHOY v. GENARO HEREDIA

    012 Phil 259

  • G.R. No. 3851 December 17, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. CHAN TOCO

    012 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. 4190 December 17, 1908 - IN RE: JOSE MA. CEBALLOS

    012 Phil 271

  • G.R. No. 4926 December 17, 1908 - GREGORIO DE LEON v. PADRE SATURNINO TRINIDAD

    012 Phil 274

  • G.R. No. 4625 December 18, 1908 - VICENTE BRIONES v. PETRA PLATON

    012 Phil 275

  • G.R. No. 4510 December 19, 1908 - THE CITY OF MANILA v. ATLANTIC, GULP AND PACIFIC COMPANY

    012 Phil 277

  • G.R. No. 4630 December 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. TORCUATA GOMEZ, ET AL.

    012 Phil 279

  • G.R. No. 4655 December 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ALEJANDRO DIONISIO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 283

  • G.R. No. 4782 December 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIANO ARONCE

    012 Phil 291

  • G.R. No. 4803 December 19, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. BALBINO ADOLFO

    012 Phil 296

  • G.R. No. 4434 December 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. LEODEGARIO HOCBO

    012 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. 4814 December 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUPO CORTES, ET AL.

    012 Phil 309

  • G.R. No. 4679 December 22, 1908 - GUEVARA v. CARMEN DE PASCUAL, ET AL.

    012 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 5041 December 22, 1908 - ALFONSO DEBRUNNER v. JOAQUIN JARAMILLO

    012 Phil 316

  • G.R. No. 3394 December 23, 1908 - ACISCLO JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. TRINIDAD BAUTISTA

    012 Phil 322

  • G.R. No. 3677 December 23, 1908 - LUIS LLACER v. FRANCISCO MUÑOZ DE BUSTILLO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 4361 December 24, 1908 - PEDRO ENDEISA v. JOSE M. TALEON, ET AL.

    012 Phil 336

  • G.R. No. 4429 December 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIXTO GALURAN, ET AL.

    012 Phil 339

  • G.R. No. 3942 December 26, 1908 - DAMIANA MANINANG v. AGUSTINA CONSOLACION

    012 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. 4214 December 26, 1908 - JOHN W. HAUSSERMANN, ET AL. v. B. F. RAHMEYER, ET AL.

    012 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 4482 December 26, 1908 - GREGORIO N. LEGASPI v. ESTEBAN AGUILAR, ET AL.

    012 Phil 353

  • G.R. No. 4451 December 29, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIMPLICIO PEÑA

    012 Phil 362

  • G.R. No. 4650 December 29, 1908 - ANDRES GARCHITORENA v. AMBROSIA POSTIGO

    012 Phil 374

  • G.R. No. 4827 December 29, 1908 - RAFAEL ENRIQUEZ v. FRANCISCO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL.

    012 Phil 380