Case Digest (G.R. No. 7987)
Facts:
Behn, Meyer & Co., Limited v. The Insular Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 7987, September 11, 1913, the Supreme Court, Moreland, J., writing for the Court. The plaintiff-appellee, Behn, Meyer & Co., Limited, imported fifty cases of faience plates into the Philippine Islands on October 27, 1907. The merchandise was entered and appraised for duty at $1,291.15 (U.S. currency), the same amount shown on a consular invoice dated August 29, 1907, certified at Hamburg; the invoice stated the goods were purchased by the importer from Arnold Otto Meyer of Hamburg and indicated the goods were placed on board at Antwerp. The back of the Hamburg invoice described Meyer as “agent of the purchaser.”After liquidation, the importer protested, claiming a clerical error: the manufacturer’s invoice had been in francs but the preparer treated its figures as Dutch florins and converted them to marks, producing a wrong value. The importer offered to produce a corrected consular invoice from Europe but did not file the bond required by law and customs regulations to guarantee presentation of such corrected consular invoice. A second consular invoice, purporting to correct the first, was presented and certified at Antwerp showing francs and Antwerp as the port of shipment; the Bureau of Customs rejected it because it had been consularized in a different country and by a different consul than the original Hamburg certificate. A third consular invoice, again certified at Hamburg and dated April 22, 1908, was also tendered; the Bureau rejected it because each invoice named Arnold Otto Meyer as seller while also declaring him the purchaser’s agent, and no original invoice showing whence Meyer obtained the goods or at what price was attached (citing Tariff Decision Circular No. 863). The Bureau also compared a French commercial invoice (showing Paris as the place of original sale) and concluded the consulated copies did not represent the market value at Antwerp or Hamburg.
The Insular Collector of Customs overruled the importer’s protest. The importer appealed to the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila, which, after hearing, reversed the Collector and held the Collector erred in accep...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the importer, having presented a consular invoice certified at Hamburg and failing to file the statutory bond for a corrected consular invoice, have the right to impeach that invoice by presenting consular invoices certified in other consular districts or otherwise defective invoices?
- For ad valorem duties, should the dutiable value be the manufacturer’s factory price in France (Gien/Paris) or the actual market value in the principal market of the countr...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)