Facts:

The case Wise and Company vs. The Insular Collector of Customs revolves around a dispute regarding customs duties on an importation of petroleum. The plaintiff, Wise and Company, a corporation based in Manila, was the managing agent for the Texas Company, which imported petroleum products into the Philippines. In August 1921, the Texas Company shipped 10,000 cases of Torre brand kerosene from Port Arthur, Texas, to Shanghai, China, with the intention of transshipping it to Manila. The shipment was made aboard the steamer England Maru, which arrived in Shanghai on October 7, 1921. The kerosene was then transferred to another vessel, the Coaxet, which was bound for Manila, arriving on October 17, 1921.

The shipment was accompanied by two bills of lading: one from Port Arthur to Shanghai and another from Shanghai to Manila. The first bill of lading indicated that the goods were to be sent from Shanghai to Manila at the consignee's risk and expense. Upon arrival in Manila,...

Facts:

1. Parties Involved:

   • Plaintiff and Appellee: Wise & Company, a corporation organized under Philippine laws, representing the Texas Company in the Philippines.
   • Defendant and Appellant: The Insular Collector of Customs, responsible for customs duties in Manila.

2. Nature of the Case:

   • Wise & Company imported 10,000 cases of kerosene (Torre brand) from the United States via Shanghai, China, to Manila.
   • The Insular Collector of Customs imposed import duties of P3,871.34 on the shipment, which Wise & Company paid under protest, claiming exemption under Section 12 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909, as amended by the U.S. Tariff Act of 1913.

3. Shipment Details:

   • The kerosene was shipped from Port Arthur, Texas, to Shanghai on the steamer England Maru.
   • It was then transshipped to Manila on the vessel Coaxet, arriving on October 17, 1921.
   • Two bills of lading were issued: one from Port Arthur to Shanghai (Exhibit A) and another from Shanghai to Manila (Exhibit B).

4. Key Provisions in the Bill of Lading:

   • The bill of lading from Port Arthur stated: "To be sent from Shanghai, China to Manila, P.I. at the risk and cost of the consignee" and "In transit from Port Arthur, Texas, to Manila, P.I., via Shanghai, China."

5. Customs Dispute:

   • The Insular Collector of Customs denied Wise & Company's protest, arguing that the shipment did not qualify for duty exemption under the Tariff Act.
   • Wise & Company sought a refund, claiming the shipment was a direct shipment under a through bill of lading.

6. Affidavit (Exhibit C):

   • An affidavit by E.C. Battersky, an attorney for the Texas Company, explained that the shipment was intended for Manila and was transshipped in Shanghai due to an emergency. The affidavit emphasized that the kerosene was never destined for China and was shipped under conditions equivalent to a through bill of lading.

7. Legal Provisions:

   • Section 12 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909, as amended by the U.S. Tariff Act of 1913, exempted U.S. cargo from duty if shipped directly under a through bill of lading and bonded when passing through foreign territory.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Legal Effect of the Bill of Lading:

   • A bill of lading is a contract for the carriage and delivery of goods, and no specific form is required for it to qualify as a through bill of lading. The clauses in the bill of lading from Port Arthur imposed an obligation on the carrier to transship the goods to Manila, making it functionally equivalent to a through bill of lading.

2. Direct Shipment:

   • The shipment was considered direct because the goods were not landed or entered in Shanghai but were merely transferred from one vessel to another. This satisfied the requirement of direct shipment under the Tariff Act.

3. Purpose of the Tariff Act:

   • The Court interpreted the Tariff Act in light of its purpose, which was to prevent the commingling of goods with foreign merchandise at intermediate ports. Since the goods were not landed in Shanghai and were directly transshipped, the shipment complied with the law's intent.

4. Dissent:

   • Justices Johnson and Street dissented, arguing that the shipment did not meet the legal requirements of a through bill of lading or direct shipment. They emphasized that the transshipment in Shanghai and the issuance of a second bill of lading disqualified the shipment from duty exemption.