Case Digest (G.R. No. 7987)
Facts:
The case of Behn, Meyer & Co., Limited vs. The Insular Collector of Customs arose from an importation made by the plaintiff, Behn, Meyer & Co., Limited, on October 27, 1907, involving fifty cases of faience plates valued at $1,291.15 in United States currency. This value was documented in a consular invoice dated August 29, 1907, from Hamburg, Germany, indicating that the merchandise was purchased from Arnold Otto Meyer, who was identified as the agent of the importer. Although the goods were shipped from Hamburg, they were placed on board at the port of Antwerp, Belgium.
After the entry was liquidated, the importer filed a protest against the liquidation, claiming a clerical error in the consular invoice. The error involved the misrepresentation of the currency in which the manufacturer's invoice was stated; it was mistakenly recorded as Dutch florins instead of francs. The importer offered to produce a corrected consular invoice but did not file a bon...
Case Digest (G.R. No. 7987)
Facts:
Importation and Initial Invoice
- On October 27, 1907, Behn, Meyer & Co., Limited (plaintiff) imported 50 cases of faience plates into the Philippine Islands.
- The value declared in the consular invoice, dated August 29, 1907, from Hamburg, Germany, was $1,291.15 in U.S. currency.
- The invoice stated that the merchandise was purchased from Arnold Otto Meyer of Hamburg, who was also declared as the agent of the purchaser, Behn, Meyer & Co., Limited.
- The goods were shipped from Hamburg but were placed on board at Antwerp, Belgium.
Protest and Corrected Invoices
- After the entry was liquidated, the importer filed a protest, claiming a clerical error in the consular invoice. The error involved the currency conversion from Dutch florins to marks instead of francs.
- The importer offered to produce a corrected consular invoice but failed to file a bond as required by law and customs regulations.
- A second consular invoice, issued in Antwerp, Belgium, was presented, stating the currency in francs and listing Antwerp as the port of shipment. This invoice was rejected by the Bureau of Customs because it was consulated in a different country and by a different consul.
- A third consular invoice, issued in Hamburg, was later presented, but it was also rejected. The Bureau of Customs found irregularities because Arnold Otto Meyer appeared as both the seller and the agent of the purchaser, which was not permissible under the law.
Bureau of Customs' Decision
- The Bureau of Customs overruled the protest, holding that the importer failed to present a corrected consular invoice as required by law.
- The importer appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila, which reversed the decision of the Insular Collector of Customs, ruling that the appraiser's return was based on an incorrect invoice.
Issue:
- Whether the Bureau of Customs correctly rejected the corrected consular invoices presented by the importer.
- Whether the importer complied with the legal requirements for correcting an invoice, including filing a bond.
- Whether the dutiable value of the merchandise should be based on the value at the place of export (Hamburg) or the place of manufacture (France).
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance and affirmed the decision of the Insular Collector of Customs.
- The Court held that the importer failed to comply with the legal requirements for correcting an invoice, including the filing of a bond.
- The dutiable value of the merchandise must be based on the value at the place of export (Hamburg), not the place of manufacture (France).
Ratio:
- Compliance with Legal Requirements: The importer was required to file a bond for the production of a corrected consular invoice. Failure to do so meant that the original invoice could not be impugned, and the importer could not claim that it was incorrect.
- Dutiable Value Based on Export Country: Under the Customs Administrative Act, the dutiable value of imported merchandise is based on its value in the country of export (Hamburg), not the place of manufacture (France). The importer failed to provide evidence of the value of the goods in Hamburg or Antwerp.
- Presumption of Correctness: The actions of the Insular Collector of Customs are presumed correct, and the burden of proof lies on the importer to show that the assessment was incorrect. The importer failed to meet this burden.
- No Abrogation of Laws or Regulations: Courts cannot abrogate laws or interfere with reasonable rules and regulations of a department. The importer's failure to comply with the law and regulations resulted in the higher duty assessment.