Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4427)
Facts:
The case of Ang Tuan Kai & Co. vs. The Import Control Commission (G.R. No. L-4427) was decided on April 21, 1952. The petitioner, Ang Tuan Kai & Co., a registered partnership based in Manila, sought a writ of certiorari and mandamus against the Import Control Commission. The petition arose from a resolution dated December 11, 1950, wherein the Commission denied the petitioner’s request to credit their 1949 import quotas for Rayon and Cotton textiles against orders placed with foreign suppliers before July 31, 1949. The petitioner had placed orders amounting to approximately P340,000, which were accepted prior to the cutoff date. However, the Import Control Commission, citing Circular No. 12 issued on June 7, 1949, stated that all quotas for the first half of 1949 must be covered by orders placed and accepted by the specified date, or they would be canceled. The petitioner argued that their orders should be allowed to enter the country and be charged against their 19...
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-4427)
Facts:
Parties Involved:
- Petitioner: Ang Tuan Kai & Co., a duly registered partnership in Manila.
- Respondent: The Import Control Commission.
Background of the Case:
- The petitioner, Ang Tuan Kai & Co., placed orders for textiles (Rayon Textiles and Manufactures amounting to P335,945.20 and Cotton Textiles and Manufactures amounting to P4,809.41) with foreign suppliers before July 31, 1949.
- The petitioner requested the Import Control Commission in November 1950 to allow the importation of these textiles against its 1949 import quotas, citing Circular No. 12 issued by the Import Control Office on June 7, 1949.
Circular No. 12:
- The circular stated that all quotas for the first six months of 1949 must be covered by orders placed and accepted on or before July 31, 1949, or they would be canceled.
- Importers were required to furnish evidence of such orders and acceptance to the Import Control Office.
Respondent’s Action:
- The Import Control Commission denied the petitioner’s request and instead decided to charge the orders against the petitioner’s 1951 quota and exchange allocations.
Petitioner’s Allegations:
- The petitioner claimed that the respondent acted with grave abuse of authority and discretion in denying the request.
- The petitioner argued that the respondent’s decision to charge the orders against the 1951 quota implied that the orders had been accepted before July 31, 1949.
Respondent’s Defenses:
- The respondent raised two main defenses:
a) The petitioner had a plain and adequate remedy by appealing to the President.
b) The petitioner failed to sufficiently prove that the orders had been accepted before July 31, 1949, as required by Circular No. 12.
- The respondent raised two main defenses:
Issue:
- Whether the Import Control Commission committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s request to utilize its 1949 import quotas for orders placed before July 31, 1949.
- Whether the petitioner had a clear legal right under Circular No. 12 to have its 1949 quotas credited for the orders in question.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)