G.R. No. L-19337 - Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs

Petitioner Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. is engaged in producing and milling centrifugal sugar for export, using jute bags as containers.
The petitioner made two importations of jute bags in 1957, entering them free of customs duties and special import tax by filing bonds conditioned upon re-exportation within one year.

First shipment: 44,800 jute bags under entry 48 (January 8, 1957) with Re-exportation and Special Import Tax Bond no. 1 in the amounts of P25,088 (duties) and P2,464.50 (special import tax).
Second shipment: 75,200 jute bags under entry 243 (February 8, 1957) with bond no. 6 for P42,112 (duties) and P7,984.44 (special import tax).
Bonds required exportation of the jute bags within one year from importation or payment of duties.

Of the first shipment, only 8,647 bags were exported within one year.
Of the second shipment, 25,000 bags were exported within one year.
Total exported within one year: 33,647 bags. Remaining 86,353 bags were exported after the one-year period but within three years.

On February 6, 1958, petitioner requested a one-week extension of bond no. 6 due to:

The Commissioner of Customs denied the extension by letter dated April 15, 1958.

On March 17, 1958, the Collector of Customs demanded payment of P28,629.42 representing duties and special import tax for unexported bags within the one-year period; petitioner paid under protest.
Petitioner sought refund, arguing timely request for extension, force majeure events, and alternatively a drawback under Section 106(b) of the Tariff and Customs Code.
Claims were denied by the Collector of Customs, upheld by the Commissioner of Customs, and affirmed by the Court of Tax Appeals on November 20, 1961.

Whether the Commissioner of Customs has the discretion under the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909 (and its successor provisions) to extend the one-year period prescribed for the exportation of imported containers such as jute bags.

Whether force majeure and/or fortuitous events can justify failure to export within the prescribed period and thus entitle the petitioner to relief.

Whether “jute bags” are included within the scope of “containers” subject to section 23 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909 and related Administrative Orders.

Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund by way of a drawback under Section 106(b) of the Tariff and Customs Code despite failure to export within the one-year bond period.