Case Digest (G.R. No. 178759)
Facts:
This is Chevron Philippines, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs, G.R. No. 178759, August 11, 2008, Supreme Court First Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court.Chevron Philippines, Inc. (petitioner) imported several crude oil and petroleum shipments in March–April 1996 covered by eight bills of lading. The shipments were unloaded to petitioner’s tanks over several days. Import Entry Declarations (IEDs) were filed within days of arrival but the Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declarations (IEIRDs) were filed later (between March and June 1996) and petitioner paid advance duties calculated at the 3% rate in force under RA 8180 (Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act of 1996); before RA 8180 the applicable rate had been 10%. Petitioner paid P316,499,021 in duties.
In 1999 the Finance Secretary received a denunciation that led the Bureau of Customs (BOC) to investigate. The Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service (IPD‑CIIS) found that the IEIRDs were filed beyond the non‑extendible 30‑day period under the Tariff and Customs Code (TCC), concluded the shipments were abandoned under Section 1801 and that fraud and collusion with a former District Collector occurred. On October 29, 2001 the BOC, through the Commissioner, demanded payment of the total dutiable value of the importations. When petitioner failed to pay, it filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) First Division on November 28, 2001.
The CTA First Division (April 5, 2005) agreed fraud existed (making prescription inapplicable) but paradoxically held the shipments were not abandoned and computed petitioner’s deficiency liability at P105,899,569.05. Motions for reconsideration were denied (September 9, 2005). Both parties appealed to the CTA en banc (consolidated as CTA EB Nos. 121 & 122). The CTA en banc (March 1, 2007) reversed the CTA Division, ruling that under Sections 1301 and 205 of the TCC “entry” contemplates the IEIRD, that the tardy IEIRDs meant the entries were not seasonably filed and the goods were deemed abandoned under Sections 1801 and 1802; it also s...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does “entry” under Section 1301 in relation to Section 1801 of the Tariff and Customs Code refer to the IED or to the IEIRD?
- Was fraud perpetrated by petitioner in the handling of the import entries and release of the shipments?
- Were the importations properly deemed abandoned under Section 1801, and was notice require...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)