SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

G.R. No. L-7958           February 20, 1913
CARLOS GSELL vs. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS -->

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-7958 February 20, 1913

CARLOS GSELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Defendant-Appellee.

Rohde and Wright, for appellant.
Office of the Solicitor-General Harvey, for appellee.

JOHNSON, J. :chanrobles virtual law library

The record shows that the appellant imported into the Philippine Islands a certain amount of merchandise, which he declared to be "9 bales wool waste," but which was invoiced in the bill of lading as "9 bales wool." The Collector of Customs for the port of Manila classified said merchandise as "wool waste" under paragraph (a) of article 135 of the Philippine Customs Tariff of 1909, ¹ and assessed duty thereon at 10 per cent ad valorem. The duty thus assessed was paid under protest upon the ground that the merchandise in question should have been assessed for duty as "wool not farther advanced in condition than washed," and admitted free of duty under paragraph 311 of said Tariff Law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

An appeal was taken to the Insular Collector of Customs against the said classification and assessment of duty. The Insular Collector, after hearing the protest of the importer, modified the original classification and assessment and admitted said merchandise free of duty. In the second decision of the Insular Collector said merchandise was classified as "noils." The Insular Collector held that the merchandise in question was commercially known as "noils." chanrobles virtual law library

The decision of the Insular Collector of Customs was called to the attention of the Secretary of Finance and Justice on the 18th of July, 1911, and said Secretary, pursuant to law, requested the Collector of Customs to certify and transmit his said second decision, together with the entries, invoices, exhibits, and all other papers connected therewith, to the clerk of the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila, for revision by the Court of First Instance, which request was complied with on the 28th of July, 1911.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Later the question as to the proper classification of said merchandise was presented to the Court of First Instance of the city of Manila. After a careful consideration of the record, the Honorable Charles S. Lobingier, judge, in a very carefully prepared opinion, modified the conclusion of the Insular Collector of Customs and held that the merchandise in question should have been classified and assessed for duty under paragraph (b) of article 303 of said Tariff Law and rendered a judgment in accordance with said conclusion.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

From the judgment the plaintiff appealed and in this court made the following assignments of error: chanrobles virtual law library

First. The Court of First Instance erred in holding that the merchandise in question is "wool further advanced in condition than washed." chanrobles virtual law library

Second. The Court of First Instance erred in not holding that the merchandise in question is "wool not further advanced in condition than washed." chanrobles virtual law library

After a careful examination of the record brought to this court, with special reference to the said assignments of error, we are persuaded and so hold that the classification of the merchandise in question made by the Court of First Instance is in accordance with the facts and the law applicable thereto, and without a further discussion of the questions involved and without prejudice to the writing of an opinion in which such questions may be more fully discussed, the judgment of the Court of First Instance is hereby affirmed with costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

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

Separate Opinionschanrobles virtual law library

TRENT, J., dissenting: chanrobles virtual law library

I dissent. Judgment should be reversed.

---

Endnotes:

¹ 7 Pub. Laws, 390.