Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1908 > November 1908 Decisions > G.R. No. 4315 November 21, 1908 - KUENZLE & STREIFF v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

012 Phil 117:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 4315. November 21, 1908. ]

KUENZLE & STREIFF, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Defendant-Appellee.

Hartigan, Rohde & Gutierrez, for Appellants.

Attorney-General Araneta, for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. TARIFF LAW; INTERPRETATION; "STARE DECISIS." — It is a rule well established in the interpretation of customs laws that, where there has been a long acquiescence in a regulation by which the rights of parties for years have been determined and adjusted, such interpretation should be followed in the absence of the most cogent and persuasive reasons to the contrary. (Robertson v. Downing, 127 U. S., 607; U. S., v. Healey, 160 U. S., 136; Merritt v. Cameron. 137 U. S., 542.)


D E C I S I O N


JOHNSON, J. :


In the month of April, 1906, the plaintiffs imported into the Philippine Islands certain cotton goods, upon which the Collector of Customs imposed a duty under paragraph (c) of article 117 of the tariff laws applicable to the Philippine Islands, 1 and in addition thereto a surtax of 30 per cent under paragraph (g) of said article. Against this ruling of the Collector of Customs the plaintiffs entered a protest, and appealed from the decision of the Collector to the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. After hearing the evidence, the said Court of First Instance affirmed the ruling of the Collector of Customs, from which decision the plaintiffs appealed to this court.

The customs authorities classified the importation under paragraph (c) of article 117 of the Customs Tariff Schedule as "textiles, plain and without figures, stamped or printed, not measuring over one hundred centimeters in width, weighing 8 kilograms or more per one hundred square meters, and from 26 to 38 threads net weight," and assessed the importation at 18 cents per kilo, plus a surtax of 30 per cent. The plaintiffs contend that the surtax of 30 per cent, under paragraph (g) of said article, was illegally imposed. Article 117 reads as follows 2 :jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"117. Textiles, plain and without figures, napped or not, weighing ten kilos or more per one hundred square meters, unbleached, bleached, or dyed; and

"Textiles, plain and without figures, stamped or printed, napped or not, measuring not over sixty-five centimeters in width, weighing eight kilos or more per one hundred square meters; and

"Textiles, plain and without figures, not stamped or printed, whatever be their width, weighing eight kilos or more per one hundred square meters, having —

"(a) Up to eighteen threads, N. W., kilo, ten cents;

"(b) From nineteen to thirty-one threads, N. W., kilo, fourteen cents.

"(c) From thirty-two to thirty-four threads, N. W., kilo, eighteen cents.

"(d) From thirty-five to thirty-eight threads, N. W., kilo, twenty-four cents.

"(e) From thirty-nine to forty-four threads, N. W., kilo, twenty-eight cents.

"(f) Forty-five threads or more, N. W., kilo, thirty-two cents.

"(g) The same textiles, stamped, printed, or manufactured with the dyed yarns, dutiable as the textile, with a surtax of thirty per centum.

" [NOTE. —Textiles woven with a colored yarn on the selvage or with a colored selvage stripe not exceeding two millimeters in width shall not be considered as manufactured with dyed yarns. ]"

The Collector of Customs held, in effect, that the last paragraph (g), imposing a surtax upon textiles stamped, printed or manufactured with dyed yarn, clearly refers to all descriptions which precede it and therefore all textiles, when printed, stamped or manufactured with dyed yarns should be subjected to a surtax of 30 per cent. The Collector further held that this interpretation of said article had been followed since November 12, 1901, and that the law in the meantime had been amended twice, without the Legislature having made any change in that portion of said article.

It is a rule well established in the interpretation of customs laws that, where there has been a long acquiescence in a regulation by which the rights of parties for years have been determined and adjusted, such interpretation should be followed in the absence of the most cogent and persuasive reasons to the contrary. (Robertson v. Downing, 127 U. S., 607; U. S. v. Healey, 160 U. S., 136; Merritt v. Cameron, 137 U. S., 542.)

The only error assigned by the appellants is that "the lower court erred in approving the imposition of the duty (surtax) made by the Collector" and argue that the last paragraph (g) of said article 117 does not apply to the goods mentioned in paragraph 3 of said article. Said paragraph 3 (unnumbered) relates to textiles, plain and without figures, not stamped or printed. It is clear that the last paragraph (g), does not apply to the textiles mentioned in said paragraph 3, because paragraph (g) only refers to textiles stamped, printed, etc. Whenever textiles are stamped, printed, etc., they do not come under the description given in said paragraph 3, and, therefore, paragraph (g), because it refers only to textiles stamped, printed, etc., has no application to said paragraph 3.

Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of article 117 enumerate the textiles upon which duty is imposed. Paragraphs (a) to (f) fix the duty upon those textiles, under the conditions mentioned in said paragraphs (a) to (f). Paragraph (g) imposes a surtax upon all the textiles mentioned under article 117 when said textiles are in the condition mentioned in said paragraph (g). Paragraph (g) might be read "These same textiles mentioned above, when they are stamped, printed, etc., are subject to a surtax of 30 per cent."cralaw virtua1aw library

Our conclusion is, therefore, that the textiles in controversy being stamped, printed, etc., are subject to a surtax of 30 per cent, and that the judgment of the lower court should be affirmed, with costs. So ordered.

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

Carson and Willard, JJ., dissent.

Endnotes:



1. Act of Congress of March 3, 1905, par. 117 (c) (4 Pub. Laws 174).

2. Act of Congress of February 26, 1906, par. 117 (5 Pub. Laws, 435).




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





November-1908 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 4621 November 2, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUANA AYARDI

    011 Phil 549

  • G.R. No. 3712 November 4, 1908 - CANDIDO CONCEPCION v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

    011 Phil 552

  • G.R. No. 3879 November 4, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PRUDENCIO ARCOS

    011 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. 4238 November 4, 1908 - FRANK B. INGERSOLL v. VENTURA CHUI-TIAN LAY, ET AL.

    011 Phil 564

  • G.R. No. 4605 November 4, 1908 - IGNACIO REMONTAN v. ALEJANDRO CABACUNGAN

    011 Phil 571

  • G.R. No. 4440 November 5, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. HILARIO GALANCO, ET AL.

    011 Phil 575

  • G.R. No. 4232 November 7, 1908 - FELIX BAUTISTA v. AQUILINA TIONGSON, ET AL.

    011 Phil 579

  • G.R. No. 4389 November 10, 1908 - GLICERIA MARELLA v. VICENTE REYES

    012 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 3753 November 11, 1908 - HERRANZ & GARRIZ v. ROMAN BARBUDO

    012 Phil 5

  • G.R. No. 4515 November 11, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. ISIDRO SERVILLAS

    012 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 4777 November 11, 1908 - SUILIONG & CO. v. SILVINA CHIO-TAYSAN

    012 Phil 13

  • G.R. No. 4450 November 11, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. LUCINA MACASPAC

    012 Phil 26

  • G.R. No. 4636 November 14, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RAMON NERI ABEJUELA

    012 Phil 30

  • G.R. No. 4476 November 14, 1908 - FELIX SAMSON, ET AL. v. MARIANO HONRADO

    012 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 4517 November 14, 1908 - HIJOS DE I. DE LA RAMA v. VALENTIN INVENTOR

    012 Phil 44

  • G.R. No. 4523 November 16, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. NICOLAS CARREON, ET AL.

    012 Phil 51

  • G.R. No. 4581 November 16, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. PABILO ESCALONA

    012 Phil 54

  • G.R. No. 2994 November 18, 1908 - ILDEFONSA VARGAS v. AGATONA EGAMINO

    012 Phil 56

  • G.R. No. 4082 November 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MANUEL LORENZANA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 64

  • G.R. No. 4211 November 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SECUNDINO MENDEZONA

    012 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. 4457 November 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. SIMONA ESCOBAÑAS

    012 Phil 80

  • G.R. No. 4607 November 18, 1908 - P. D. COLBERT v. E. M. BACHRACH

    012 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 4740 November 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. JUAN DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

    012 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. 4774 November 18, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. A. H. BARNES

    012 Phil 93

  • G.R. No. 4779 November 20, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. VICTORIA VEDRA

    012 Phil 96

  • G.R. No. 4821 November 20, 1908 - J. McMICKING v. T. KIMURA, ET AL.

    012 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. 4314 November 21, 1908 - LORENZA QUISON, ET AL. v. HIGINA SALUD

    012 Phil 109

  • G.R. No. 4315 November 21, 1908 - KUENZLE & STREIFF v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    012 Phil 117

  • G.R. No. 4671 November 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. EMILIANO J. TORRES

    012 Phil 121

  • G.R. No. 4675 November 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. RICARDO MENDIOLA

    012 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 4722 November 21, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. TAN TAYCO, ET AL.

    012 Phil 127

  • G.R. No. 4597 November 23, 1908 - JOSE GARCIA RON v. LA COMPANIA DE MINAS DE BATAN

    012 Phil 130

  • G.R. No. 4795 November 23, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. MARIANO BOSTON

    012 Phil 134

  • G.R. No. 4557 November 24, 1908 - UNITED STATES v. AGAPITO ROSAL

    012 Phil 135

  • G.R. No. 1598 November 30, 1908 - JOSE PALACIOS v. MUNICIPALITY OF CAVITE

    012 Phil 140