Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 440 views

    Asturias Sugar Central v. Commissioner of Customs

    Uploaded by

    Joan Eunise Fernandez
    The Commissioner of Customs has discretion to extend the one-year period to export imported containers provided under the law. However, the Commissioner chose not to extend the period by issuing administrative orders stating that the one-year period is non-extendable. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, applying judicial respect for administrative construction and noting Congress did not amend the law to allow extensions when passing the Tariff and Customs Code. Therefore, the one-year period to export under the law is non-extendable and compliance is mandatory.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Asturias Sugar Central v. Commissioner of Customs

    Uploaded by

    Joan Eunise Fernandez
    440 views2 pages
    The Commissioner of Customs has discretion to extend the one-year period to export imported containers provided under the law. However, the Commissioner chose not to extend the period by issuing administrative orders stating that the one-year period is non-extendable. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, applying judicial respect for administrative construction and noting Congress did not amend the law to allow extensions when passing the Tariff and Customs Code. Therefore, the one-year period to export under the law is non-extendable and compliance is mandatory.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest | Tax

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Commissioner of Customs has discretion to extend the one-year period to export imported containers provided under the law. However, the Commissioner chose not to extend the period by issuing administrative orders stating that the one-year period is non-extendable. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, applying judicial respect for administrative construction and noting Congress did not amend the law to allow extensions when passing the Tariff and Customs Code. Therefore, the one-year period to export under the law is non-extendable and compliance is mandatory.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    440 views2 pages

    Asturias Sugar Central v. Commissioner of Customs

    Uploaded by

    Joan Eunise Fernandez
    The Commissioner of Customs has discretion to extend the one-year period to export imported containers provided under the law. However, the Commissioner chose not to extend the period by issuing administrative orders stating that the one-year period is non-extendable. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, applying judicial respect for administrative construction and noting Congress did not amend the law to allow extensions when passing the Tariff and Customs Code. Therefore, the one-year period to export under the law is non-extendable and compliance is mandatory.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Topic SOURCES OF TAX LAW: ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUANCES

    Case No. G.R. No. L-19337 / September 30, 1969


    Case Name ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS and CTA
    Ponente CASTRO, j.

    RELEVANT FACTS
     Petitioner Asturias Sugar Central (P) is engaged in the production and milling of centrifugal sugar for
    export, the sugar so produced being places in containers known as jute bags.
     In 1957, P made 2 importations of jute bags: first shipment = 44,800 jute bags; second shipment =
    75,200 jute bags. Both shipments entered free of customs duties and special import tax upon P’s filing of
    Re-exportation and Special Import Tax Bonds, conditioned upon the exportation of the jute bags within
    1 year from the date of importation.
     Of the first shipment, only 8,647 were exported within one year; while of the second shipment, only
    25,000 were exported. The remaining 86,353 bags were exported after the expiration of the 1-year
    period but within 3 years from their importation.
     On Feb. 6, 1958, P requested the Commr. of Customs for a week’s extension of the Re-exportation Bond
    which was to expire the following day, giving as reasons typhoons and severe floods, picketing by union
    in the railroad and delay in the arrival of the vessel which would ship the sugar.
     The Commr. denied the request.
     Due to P’s failure to show proof of the exportation of the balance of 86,353 jute bags within 1 year, the
    Collector of Customs required it to pay P28,629.42 representing the customs duties and special import
    tax due thereon. P paid under protest.
     In its letter of April 10, 1958, P demanded the refund of the amount it paid saying that its request for
    extension of the period of 1 year was filed on time, that its failure to export within said period was due
    to the delay in the arrival of the vessel and the picketing. Alternatively, P asked for refund in the form of
    a drawback under Sec. 106(b) in rel. to Sec. 105(x) of the Tariff and Customs Code.
     Collector of Customs denied the claim for refund. P appealed to the Commr. of Customs, who upheld
    the Collector’s decision. CTA also affirmed.
     Hence this petition.

    ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI


    Issue Ratio
    W/N the Commr. of Customs HE COULD HAVE BUT CHOSE NOT TO BY ISSUING CUSTOMS
    is vested, under the Phil. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS 289 AND 66 WHICH MADE KNOWN THE
    Tariff Act of 1909, the then BUREAU’S POLICY TO CONSIDER THE 1-YEAR PERIOD AS NON-EXTENDIBLE.
    applicable law, with
    discretion to extend the 1. Sec. 23 reads:
    period of 1 year provided for a. SEC. 23. That containers…which are, in the opinion of the collector of
    in Sec. 23 of the Act? customs, of such a character as to be readily identifiable may be
    delivered to the importer thereof upon identification and the giving
    of a bond with sureties satisfactory to the collector of customs in an
    amount equal to double the estimated duties thereon, conditioned
    for the exportation thereof or payment of the corresponding duties
    thereon within one year from the date of importation, under such
    rules and regulations as the Insular Collector of Customs shall
    provide.
    2. To implement the said Sec. 23, Customs Administrative Order 289 was
    promulgated which provides that "bonds for the re-exportation of
    cylinders and other containers are good for 12 months without
    extension," and that "bonds for customs brokers, commercial samples,
    repairs and those filed to guarantee the re-exportation of cylinders and
    other containers are not extendible."

    3. And insofar as jute bags as containers are concerned, Customs


    Administrative Order 66 was issued. Said administrative order provides
    “that importation of jute bags intended for use as containers of Philippine
    products for exportation to foreign countries shall be declared in a
    regular import entry supported by a surety bond in an amount equal to
    double the estimated duties, conditioned for the exportation or payment
    of the corresponding duties thereon within one year from the date of
    importation.”

    4. It will be noted that Sec. 23 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909 and the
    superseding Sec. 105(x) of the Tariff and Customs Code, while fixing at 1
    year the period within which the containers therein mentioned must be
    exported, are silent as to whether the said period may be extended. It
    was surely by reason of this silence that the Bureau of Customs issued
    Administrative Orders 389 and 66, already adverted to, to eliminate
    confusion and provide a guide as to how it shall apply the law, and,
    more specifically, to make officially known its policy to consider the 1-
    year period mentioned in the law as non-extendible.

    5. In this case, the Court applied the doctrine of judicial respect for
    administrative construction. It held that the administrative orders in
    question appear to be in consonance with the intention of the legislature
    to limit the period within which to export imported containers to 1 year,
    without extension, from the date of importation. Otherwise, in enacting
    the Tariff and Customs Code to supersede the Philippine Tariff Act of
    1909, Congress would have amended Sec. 23 of the latter law so as to
    overrule the long-standing view of the Commissioner of Customs that the
    1-year period therein mentioned is not extendible.

    6. The Court ruled that the 1-year period prescribed in Sec. 23 of the Phil.
    Tariff Act of 1909 is non-extendible and compliance therewith is
    mandatory.

    RULING
    ACCORDINGLY, the judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals of November 20, 1961 is affirmed, at petitioner's cost.

    You might also like