Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1924 > March 1924 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21140 March 25, 1924 - CRUZ, MERCHANT & CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

046 Phil 961:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-21140. March 25, 1924. ]

CRUZ, MERCHANT & CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Defendant-Appellant.

Attorney-General Villa-Real for Appellant.

Recto & Casal for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CUSTOMS; IMPORT DUTIES’ EXEMPTION. — The exemption from customs duties provided in section 11, paragraph 351, of the Philippine Tariff Law of 1909, as to coverings and holdings of articles, goods, and merchandise is applicable only to coverings and holdings actually used at the time of being imported, but not to sacks imported empty and sent upon a bill of lading.


D E C I S I O N


AVANCEÑA, J. :


On October 20, 1922, the plaintiff Cruz, Merchant & Co., Inc., filed a protest with the Insular Collector of Customs against the collection of P1,000 as customs duty upon 25,000 empty sacks consigned to the plaintiff from San Francisco, California, United States. The protest was overruled and the ruling of the Insular Collector of Customs taken on appeal to the Court of First Instance for its review, and said court, sustaining the legality of the protest, sentenced the Insular Collector of Customs to return to plaintiff the sum of P1,000. From this decision the present appeal was taken.

The parties have entered into the following stipulation of facts:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That the jute sacks upon which a customs duty was collected had already been imported in the Philippine Islands, the corresponding import duty having been paid upon their entry.

"That these same sacks were sent to America as coverings for copra.

"That these same sacks were returned empty to Manila from San Francisco, and again were subsequently sent with copra to the same point of San Francisco."cralaw virtua1aw library

It must be added that the jute sacks above-mentioned were manufactured abroad and that when they were landed here they were empty and came upon a bill of lading. According to section 8 of the Philippine Tariff Law of 1909 (Act of Congress of the United States), articles of foreign produce or manufacture shall be dutiable upon each importation even though they may have previously been exported from the Philippine Islands. Articles subject to the payment of duties, which are imported and then exported, shall be subject to the payment of duties upon their subsequent reimportation.

In the United States the following precedents were established upon the matter:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"A reimportation of exported merchandise is ordinarily considered, for customs purposes, as new importation and is dutiable accordingly." (Vol. II, T. D. No. 21504, p. 255, decided August 15, 1899.)

"A reimportation of merchandise is, in general, to be treated as an original importation for tariff purposes." (Vol. III, T. D. No. 22648, p. 984, decided November 30, 1899.)

"It having been settled that even when merchandise of foreign origin is reimported into the United States, it should be treated as an original importation." (Vol. 35, T. D., p. 302, July, 1918.)

"Foreign goods once lawfully admitted into the United States, if reexported or voluntarily placed within the limits of a foreign jurisdiction, lose the character imparted to them by such admission, and if reimported into the United States, are regarded as new importations, subject to the laws governing imported merchandise." (1 Deady, 62; 23 Fed. Cas., 840; T. D. No. 25768; November 14, 1904.)

The plaintiff invokes section 11, paragraph 351, of the said Tariff Law which provides that there are exempted from duties upon their importation into the Philippines Islands . . . coverings and holdings of articles, goods, wares, and merchandise. This provision, however, refers to coverings and holdings used as such at the time of being imported, and is not applicable to the jute sacks in question, which were imported empty and sent upon a bill of lading.

The plaintiff invokes the decision of this court in the case of the Visayan Refining Co. v. Insular Collector of Customs (R.G. No. 18377). 1 But this decision is not applicable also. In that case, when the drums were reimported they came actually containing oil and had for this reason to be considered as holdings within the meaning of the exception established in section 11 of the Tariff Law.

The judgment appealed from is revoked, the tax collected by the defendant Insular Collector of Customs upon the 25,000 jute sacks held legal, and the defendant is absolved from the complaint without special pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

Araullo, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Promulgated September 4, 1922, not reported.




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






March-1924 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 21320 March 4, 1924 - ASIATIC PETROLEUM CO. v. WENCESLAO TRINIDAD

    045 Phil 763

  • G.R. No. 20991 March 6, 1924 - G. A. CU UNJIENG v. ASIA BANKING CORPORATION

    045 Phil 769

  • G.R. No. 21310 March 6, 1924 - GUI JONG & CO. v. JOSE RIVERA

    045 Phil 778

  • G.R. No. 21362 March 6, 1924 - LUNG CHEA KUNG KEE & CO. v. VICENTE ALDANESE

    045 Phil 784

  • G.R. No. L-21284 March 12, 1924 - JUAN VERCELUZ, ET AL. v. DEOGRACIAS EDAÑO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 801

  • G.R. No. 21418 March 17, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON DE LOYOLA

    045 Phil 799



  • G.R. No. L-21178 March 18, 1924 - EMILIANO J. VALDEZ v. LEON SIBAL 1. �

    046 Phil 930


  • G.R. No. 21164 March 18, 1924 - NATIVIDAD BATIQUIN v. FILOMENA BATIQUIN

    045 Phil 802

  • G.R. No. 21495 March 18, 1924 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. INSULAR MARITIME CO.

    045 Phil 805

  • G.R. No. 20475 March 19, 1924 - IN RE: TAN DIUCO

    045 Phil 807

  • G.R. No. L-21237 March 22, 1924 - JAMES D. BARTON v. LEYTE ASPHALT & MINERAL OIL CO., LTD.

    046 Phil 938

  • G.R. No. L-21015 March 24, 1924 - MIGUELA CARRILLO v. JUSTINIANO JAOJOCO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 957

  • G.R. No. L-21140 March 25, 1924 - CRUZ, MERCHANT & CO. v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    046 Phil 961

  • G.R. No. L-21313 March 29, 1924 - ESTEBAN BARRETTO v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    046 Phil 964

  • G.R. No. 21383 March 25, 1924 - H. O’LEARY v. MACONDRAY & CO.

    045 Phil 812

  • G.R. No. 21751 March 25, 1924 - MARIA AGDORO v. PHILIPPINE MINING INDUSTRIAL CO.

    045 Phil 816

  • G.R. No. 21390 March 26, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO

    045 Phil 819

  • G.R. No. 21475 March 26, 1924 - VEGETABLE OIL CORPORATION v. WINCESLAO TRINIDAD

    045 Phil 822

  • G.R. No. 21706 March 26, 1924 - JOSEFINA RUBIO VDA. DE LARENA v. HERMENEGILDO VILLANUEVA

    045 Phil 842

  • G.R. No. 21820 March 26, 1924 - MARIA EVANGELISTA v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    045 Phil 848