Case Summary (G.R. No. L-72069)
Facts of the Case
The appeals stem from two separate but related cases, CTA Cases Nos. 3177 and 3178, involving protests by Lovsted & Company against the additional customs duties assessed by the Collector of Customs in connection with two shipments. In CTA Case No. 3177, a shipment of refrigerating machinery parts arrived on July 1975, resulting in an increased valuation by the Collector of Customs from $62.35 to $70.24 per unit based on an alleged "alert notice." This resulted in an additional tax payment of P459. In CTA Case No. 3178, another shipment contained compressors and spare parts, with the Collector increasing the declared values significantly based on the same alert notice, leading to an additional tax assessment of P3,570.
Contentions of the Parties
In each case, the petitioner disputes Lovsted & Company’s assertion that the customs duties must be calculated based on the value indicated in the consular invoice per Section 201 of the Tariff and Customs Code, rather than the values suggested in the alert notices. Lovsted & Company contends that there was no established or published home consumption value for the goods, necessitating reliance on the values in the consular invoice.
Applicable Law
The relevant legal provision is Section 201 of the Tariff and Customs Code as amended by Presidential Decree No. 34 and currently reflected in Presidential Decree No. 1464. This section mandates that the dutiable value of imported articles shall be based on the home consumption value, or on the declared values in invoices, unless there exists reasonable doubt regarding those values.
Determination of Dutiable Value
The analysis focuses on whether the Collector of Customs acted lawfully in determining the dutiable value based solely on the alert notices instead of the values declared in the consular invoices. The law stipulates that customs duties should be based primarily on the declared invoiced prices, and a departure from this requires substantial evidence demonstrating the unreliability of those prices.
Findings of the Court
The Court found that the Bureau of Customs had not sufficiently established the basis of the alert notices used for reappraising the import values. The absence of published home consumption values and the lack of evidence regarding the alert notices indicated that the Collector's actions
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-72069)
Case Overview
- This case is an appeal from the joint decision of the Court of Tax Appeals concerning CTA Cases Nos. 3177 and 3178.
- The cases stem from the consolidated decision of the Commissioner of Customs regarding Manila Protest Cases Nos. 9741 and 9742.
- Both cases involve the same parties and raise identical issues regarding the valuation of imported goods.
Parties Involved
- Petitioner: Commissioner of Customs
- Respondents: Court of Tax Appeals and Lovsted & Company, Inc.
Background of the Case
- The case originated with the arrival of shipments at the Port of Manila in July 1975, specifically the S/S 'Marchen Maersk' and S/S 'Traviata.'
- The shipments included refrigerating machinery parts and compressors, which were subjected to a valuation increase by the Collector of Customs based on an alleged "alert notice."
- The petitioner, Lovsted & Company, protested the increased appraisal, arguing that the customs duties and taxes should be based on the values in the consular invoices.
Stipulated Facts (CTA Case No. 3177)
- The shipment involved 17 packages of refrigerating machinery parts, including 15 Model HGC 1000 compressors.
- The original declared value per compressor was $62.35, but the Collector of Customs increased it to $70.24, leading to additional duties and taxes amounting to P459.00.
- The petitioner protested this increase, c