Case Digest (G.R. No. 195876)
Facts:
On April 7, 1996, Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (petitioner) imported 1,979,674.85 U.S. barrels of Arab Light Crude Oil through the vessel M/T Lanistels, docking at petitioner’s Batangas wharf. Three days later, on April 10, 1996, the entire shipment was unloaded into petitioner’s tanks. Although Republic Act No. 8180 (Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act of 1996) took effect on April 16, 1996—reducing crude oil tariff from 10% to 3%—petitioner filed its Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration (IEIRD) and paid P11,231,081.00 in duties only on May 23, 1996, forty-three days after discharge. On August 1, 2000, the Bureau of Customs (BOC) demanded P120,162,991.00 in deficiency duties, which petitioner protested and appealed. On October 29, 2001, the Commissioner of Customs (respondent) issued a fresh demand for P936,899,885.90, claiming the importation was deemed abandoned by operation of law for late filing of the IEIRD. Petitioner protested again, and on April 1Case Digest (G.R. No. 195876)
Facts:
- Legislative and transactional background
- On April 16, 1996, R.A. No. 8180 (Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act) took effect, reducing the tariff on imported crude oil from 10% to 3%.
- Petitioner’s shipment of 1,979,674.85 barrels of Arab Light Crude Oil arrived on April 7, 1996, unloaded on April 10, and its Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration (IEIRD) was filed only on May 23, 1996, with duties of P11,231,081 paid at 3%.
- BOC demands and protests
- On August 1, 2000, the Bureau of Customs (BOC) demanded P120,162,991 as deficiency duties (difference between 10% and 3%), which petitioner protested and the District Collector denied.
- On October 29, 2001, the BOC demanded P936,899,885.90 as the full dutiable value, alleging abandonment for late filing; petitioner protested on November 7, 2001, and exchanged letters with BOC but did not pay.
- Court of Tax Appeals proceedings
- April 11, 2002: BOC filed Civil Case No. 02-103239 in RTC Manila against petitioner and Caltex to collect the alleged abandoned-goods value.
- May 27, 2002: Petitioner filed a petition for review before C.T.A. Case No. 6485 (First Division).
- June 19, 2008: CTA First Division ordered payment of P936,899,883.90, finding implied abandonment under Secs. 1801–1802 TCCP and fraud. Motion for reconsideration denied February 24, 2009.
- March 31, 2009: Petitioner appealed to CTA Former En Banc (C.T.A. EB No. 472).
- May 13, 2010: CTA Former En Banc affirmed abandonment and value-recovery but held fraud non-essential and imposed interest (6% until finality; 12% thereafter). Motion for reconsideration denied February 22, 2011.
- December 5, 2016: Supreme Court promulgated the decision under review.
Issues:
- Whether petitioner’s failure to file its IEIRD within 30 days implied abandonment and rendered it liable for the full dutiable value plus interest.
- Whether the government suffered revenue loss and if recovery of the dutiable value constitutes unjust enrichment.
- Whether lack of notice under Sec. 1801 and misapplication of Chevron v. Commissioner violated due process and equal protection.
- Whether imposing P936.9 million penalty for implied abandonment contravenes the Revised Kyoto Convention.
- Whether statutory authority exists to substitute the abandoned-goods claim with the value thereof.
- Whether BOC’s right to claim abandonment is barred by prescription under Sec. 1603 TCCP in the absence of fraud.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)