CTA Case No. 2804 (Decision)

R E. PURI.H~ OF 1 H E l'ntUPPINttS COURT OF TAX APPE.kLS OtlltZON CJTV HIAP HONG TRADING CO., INC., Petitioner, - ,versus - C.T.A. CAS E NO. 2804 ALFREDO PIO DE RODA, JR., Acting Commissioner of Customs, Res p ondent. X - .- .- - - ---X DE C I S I 0 N Ac tion for recovery of alle ged e x cess customs duty and advance sales tax paid on two (2) shipments of "Hokkado" brand canned mackere l i mported by peti- tioner Hiap Hong Trading Co., Inc . Respondent Commissioner of Custo ms hav ing affirmed the decision of the Collector of Customs of Manila denying its claim for refund of such excess customs duty and advanced sales tax, petitioner appealed to this Court. Petitioner is a corporation organized and existing under the laws o f the Philippines with office address at 626 M. de Santos Street, Binondo, Manila. As importer and seller of foodstuffs, among which are canned mackerel, petitioner imported from Japa n on two occasions the following items, to wit: (a) 10,000 car tons canned mackerel in natural oil "Hokkado" brand which arrived at the port of Manila on September 24, 1974 and unloaded from the vessel "Mount Fuji " . (pp. 3-8, Customs records . ) -1' f' , , (_;J()

DECISION - CTA CAS E NO. 2804 - 2- (b) 5,000 cartons canned mackerel "Hokkado" brand which arrived at the port of Manila on October 10, 1974 and unloaded from the vessel S/S "Asiat ica". (See back of p. 53, Customs records.) Upo n arrival of the aforementioned 10,000 cartons of canned mackerel, petitioner prepared on September 30, 1974 the necessary import entry and internal revenue declaration unde r oath. In the said entry, petitioner reflected the amount of $100,800.00 as the home con~ surnption value of the whole shipment of the 10, 000 cartons (see Exh�.~ "3", p. 38, Customs records) _or $10.08 per carton. (Exh. "3-A", p. 38, Customs records; pp. 7- 8, t.s.n., Hearing of December 7, 1977.) Under the I ~'..J column "current wholesale horne consumption value" of the consular invoice of the aforesaid shipment (TK No. 033948) ~ there appears the amount of US $100,728.99, which mo re or less tallies with the horne consumption value declared by petitioner in its import entry and internal revenue declaration. (Exh. "3-C", p. 39, Customs records; see also pp. 9-10, t.s.n., Hearing of December 7 , 1977.) This horne consumption value of $10.08 de clared i n the said entr y by petitioner was accepted by respondent s appraiser as the basis of computing the customs duties and taxes due the govern- ment. (Exh. "3-D", back of Exh. "3"; see alsop. 17, t.s.n., Hearing of December 7, 1977.) )

DECI S ION - CTA CASE NO. 2804 - 3- As regards the second shipment consisting of 5,000 cartons of canned mackerel which was unloaded from the vessel S/S "Asiatica", petitioner, upon arrival of the sa i ~ goods, prepared on Octobe r 11, 1974 the necessary import entry and internal revenue declaration under o a th. (Exh. "4", p. 53, Customs records.) In the said entry, petitioner declared as the home consumption value of the whole shipment the amount of $31,092.48 or $6.218 per carton. (Exh. "4-An and Exh. "4-B", p. 53, Customs records; see also t.s.n., pp. 13-14, Hearing of December 7, 1977 . ) Under the heading "current wholesale home consumption value" of the consular invoice of the said merchandise (TK No . 012917) ~ there appears the amount of $31,09~.48, which t ~ llies with the home consumpt i on value reflected by petitioner in its import entry and internal revenue declaration. (Exh. "4- C", p. 65, Customs records; see also t.s.n., pp . 15-~6, Hearing of December 7, 1977.) This home consumption value appearing in the said import entry and internal revenue declaration was likewise adapted by respondent's appraiser in com- puting the amount of customs duties and taxes due the government on the said importation. (Exh. "4-D" 1 p. 53 , see back of Exh . "4", p. 53, Customs records7 see also t.s.n., pp.l6-17, Hearing of December 7, 1977.)

DECiSION CTA CASE NO. 2804 - 4- Customs Import Valuation Circular No. 745-74 dated October 15, 1974 shows that the published horne consumption va l ue of "Hokkado" brand, canned mackerel in natural oil, salmon style 48/7 oz., involved in the 5,000 carton shipment is $6.218 per carton. How- ever, prior to October 15, 1974 the home mnsurnption value of said article as published was$6.721 per carton. (E x hs. "1", " 1 - A" & "C", p . 13, CTA records.) And Customs Import Valuation Circular No. 747-74 dated October 15, 1974 reveals that the published horne con- surnption value of "Hokkado" b ~ and, canned mackerel from Japan, 48/15 oz. tall, involved in the 10,000 c a rton sh i pment i s $10.08 per carton. Beforo October 15, 1974, the horne consumption value of said canned mackerel was $11.30 per carton. (Exhs. "2", "2-A" & "D" 1 p. 14, CTA records.) The customs duties and taxes due on the 10,000 cartons of canned mackerel were paid on October 2, 1974 in the amount o f ~185,719.00 on the basis of a home con- surnption value of $10.08 per carton as per Central Bank Receipt No. 372226 issued by the China Banking Corpo- . ration. (p. 5, Customs records.) Likewise, on October 15, 1974 pet it i o ner pa i d the amount o f ~56,062.00 as custo~s duties and t a .�~ s due on the shipment of the 5,000 cartons on the basis of a horne consumption value of $6.218 per 17 1 .,. : ...._

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2804 - ,5 - carton under Ce ntral Bank Receipt No. 93324 issued by the Equitable Bank. (p. 11, Customs records.) Subsequently, on October 14, 1974 petitioner pro- tested the assessment and collect i on of the customs duties and taxes on the 10,000 cartons of canned mackerel covered under Irnp 2~ t Entry No. 89798-74. (Manila Protest No. 9475.) Likewise, on October 28, 1974 it protested the payment of the customs duties and taxes on the shipment of 5,000 canned mackerel covered by Import Entry No. 93324-74. (Manila Prote st No. 9474 . ) In these protests, petitioner alleges, in the case of Entry No. 89798-74 that the amount of $100,728.98 appearing as "current wholesale horne consumption value" in the cons ular invoice of merchandise (Exh. "3-C") is actual ~ , FOB val u e and from i t all dutiable and non- dutiable charges, namely, value of packing materials, cost of labor in packing, inland freight and other charges, and pie r and handling charges in the aggregate sum of US$12,395.77 should have been deducted to arrive at a horne consumption value of $88,333.99 for 10,000 cartons or a n average of $8.333 per carton; and that, in the determination of the horne consumption value in the case of Entry No. 93324-74, the sum of US$3,124.27 representing alleged dutiable a n~ non-~utiable charges, such as value of packing materials, cost of labor in packing and pier and handling charges should have been 1 '~~. <"\ r .:~

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2804 -6 - excluded from the value of $31,092.48 which appears under column "current wholesale home consumption value" in the cons ular invoice of merchandise (Exh. "4-C"} but which petitioner claims the FCB value to make a total of a home consumpt ion value of $27,968.21 for the 5,000 cartons or an a vor age of $5.593 per carton. On Janu a ry 27, 1975 the Collector of Customs of Manila rendered a decision dismissing the protests filed by petitioner. Not satisfied with the decision, petitioner appealed to respondent Commissioner of Customs, claiming refund of excess customs duty and advance sales tax in the total amount of P20,019.00 under Entry No. 89798-74 and P4,976.00 under Entry No. 93324-r4, broken down as follows: ~Y No . 89798-74 & Entr y No. 93324-74 Oustoms Duty =Pl3,885.00 Customs Duty =P3,452.00 Adv. Sale s Tax=P 6,134.00 Adv. Sales Tax =Pl,724.00 Total vP2v0v,v~v.0v1v9v.v0v0 PV4V_v,V_V9V76V.V0V0 In a decision dated March 29, 1976, respondent _Commissioner of Customs aff itmed, however, the judgment of the Collector of Customs. Hence, the present recourse. No controversy exists between the parties as to the co~ p utation and amount of customs duty and advance sales tax allegedly refundable to petitioner as the case may be. -� .- - "" � ...

DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 2804 - 7- The only issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether or not the Bureau of Customs was correct in applying the home consumption value s of $10.08 and $6.218 per carton to the two shipments cover e d by Import Entry No. 89798, series of 1974, and Import Entry No. 93324, series of 1974. The law involved, which is Section 201 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended by Pr esidential Decree No. 34, is specific and manda tory. It merely calls for application as thus worded. There is no room fo r interpretation. It says: I ~l "SEC. 201. Ba si s of Dutiable Valu e . - The dutiable value of an imported article subject to an ad valorem rate of duty shall be based on the-home consumption value or price (excluding internal e xcise taxes) of same, like or sim i lar articles, as boug~t and sold or offered for sale freely in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, in t he principa l markets of the country from where expor~ e d on the date o f exportation to the Philippines, or where there is none on such date, then on the home consumption value or price nearest to the date of exportation, including the value of all containers, coverings and/or packings of any kind and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the article in a condition reaCly for shipm.ent to the Philippines, plus ten (10) ~ ~ o f such home consumption value or price. The home consumption value or price under t h is section shall be the value or price decla red in the consular, commercial, trade or sales invoice. Where there exists a reasonable doubt as to the value or price 1 rt; "_~;:

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2804 - 8- of the imported article declared in the entry, the correct dutiable value of t he article shall be ascertained from the reports of the Revenue -t tache or Commercial Attache (Foreign Trade Promotion Attache) , pursuant to Republic Act No. 5466 or ot h . r �Philippine diplomatic officers and from such other in- formation that may be ava ilable to the Burea u of Customs . From the data thus gathered, the Com- missioner of Customs shall ascertain and establish the home consumption values of articles exported to the Philippines and ~ll publish such lists of values from time to time. When the d utiable value provided for in the preceding paragraphs cannot be ascer- tained for failure of the importer to produce the documents mentioned in the second paragraph, or where there exists a reasonable doubt as t o dutiable value of the imported a r ticle declared in the entry, it shall be the domest ic wholesale selling price of such or smilar article in Manila or othe ~ principal markets in the Philippines on the date thE du~y becomes payable on the article under appraise- ment , in the usual w~o lesale quantitie s a n d in the ordinary course of trade, minus- (a) Twenty (20 ) ~ ~ thereof for expenses and profits; and (b) Du t ies and taxes ~ aid thereon . The applicable provision makes it clear tha t f or pur poses of ad valorem duties, the basis of the dut iabl e value of an i mported article is the home consump tion value or p rice on the date or neare s t to the date o f exportation, incluling the value o f all containers , coverings and/o r packings a nd all other costs a nd ex- penses i nc iden t to plac i ng the a rtic le f or shipment t o the Philippin:e s, plus ten (10 ) ~ c ent of s uch

DECISIOO - CTA CASE NO. 2804 -9 - home consumption value or price. The accent is on the term - "home consumption valu e " o r HCV fo r short . And what is the home consumption value or price as contemplated by the law? The same law gives the ready answer. It specifies: "The home consumption v a lue or price unde r this sect i on shall be the value or price decl ~ red in the consular, comme rc ial, trade or sa les invoice." Here in the case at bar, wi th regard to the first shipment consisting of 10 , 000 cartons of canned mackerel in natural oil, Hokkado brand, size 48xlS oz., the home consumptioD value actually declared by petitioner under oath is $100,800.00 for the whole shipment or $10.08 per carton. (Exhs. " 3", "3-A" & "3-B"; pp . 7-8., t.s.n., December 7, 1977.) The home consumption value appe aring in the consular invoice of merchandise (TK No. 033948) ~ referred to a s Consular Invoice No . 11766, is $100,728.9 9, which more or l 2ss tallies with the home consumption value of $100 , 800.0 0 dec l ared under oath by pet i tioner in the import entry and internal revenue declar ation of the shipment. (Exhs. "A", "3", " 3- A" & "3-C"; pp. 9-10, t.s.n., December 7, 1977.) The home consumption value of $10 . 08 per carton declared Uhd er oath by petitioner was therefore accepted by the cus toms appraiser. (Exh. " 3-D." ,� p. 17, t .s.n., December 7 , 1977 � ) And with respect to the s e cond importation consisting of 5,000 1r : r tV ':

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2804 - 10 - cartons, Hokkado brand, size 48x7 oz., the home con- sumption value actually declared under oath by peti- tioner in the import entry and i nternal revenue c 0 claration is $31,092.48 or $6.218 per carton. (Ex i:B. "4-A" & "4- B"; pp. 13-14, t.s.n., December 7, 1977 .) The home c ~ nsumption value appearing in the consular invoice of merchandise (TK No. 012917) .of $31,0~2.48 or $6.218 per c a~ ton tallies with the home consumption value declared under oath by petitioner. (Exhs. "B-3" & "4-C"; pp. 15-16, t.s.n., Decembe r 7, 1977.) . The home consu mp tion value declared by petitioner was also acce p ted by the customs a p prai ~e r. (Exh. " 4-D. "�I pp. 16-17, t.s.n., December 7, 1977.) To the extent that petitioner adhered strictly to the legal provision applicable by declaring under oath in the impor t entries and internal revenue decla- rations of the shipments in question the home con- sumption value s appearing on the consular invoices of the me rchandise, it cannot be assailed as erroneous. There being frelity to what is required by the law, there would seem to be no basis, therefore, for an assertion that what was done by petitioner could be successfully assailed. Neverthele s s, in a complete about-face, petitioner would now want this Court to bel ieve that the home cons umption value of $10.08 per eaton with respect

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 280 4 - 11 - to the first importation and of $6.218 per carton a s regards the second shipment, appearing in the consular invoices of the merchandise , which were decla red under oath by it i n the import entrie s and internal revenue declarations of the imported articles, although in accordance with the law, are not the i r actual and correct horne consumption values. It is the position of petitioner that it had to declare the horne consumption values stated in the consular invc i ces of merchandise only because of fear that the import entries would be subjected to the penalty of surcharge if it did not do so. According to petitione r, before the import decla- ration wa s filed for each of the two shipments, i~ . customs broker verbally asked for information from the customs appraiser concerned regarding the horne consumption value t o be declared for each importation. The appraiser suggested that the value of US$10.072899 per carton appearing on the consu lai invoice attached to Entry No. 89798-74 be declared in t he import entry as the horne consumption value; and that the value of US$6.2118496 per carton appearing on the co ~ sular invoice attached to Entty No. 93324-74 be declared in the impor t entry as the horne consumption value. In spite of the fact that its broker allegedly disagreed with these values, he had to declare them f or fear that the import entries -i t'"' ~) J.. I 0 . -, .~

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 280 4 - 12 - would be subjecte..:l _ -~ s urcharge. (pp.44-45, CTA records. ) To empha size its disagreement, petitioner avers t h at immediately after paying the customs duties and taxe s on the basis of the values appearing on the consular invoices, the broker filed a protest on its behalf on October 14, 1974 for En try No. 89798-74 and on Oc tober 28 , 1974 for Entry No. 93324-74, which protests are attached to the import entries. In these two protests, petitioner alleges, in case of Entry No. 89798-74, that from the consular value of $100 ,728 .99, all dutiable and non-dutiable charges, namely, value of packing materials, cost of labor in packing , inland freight and othe r charges, and pier and handling charges in the aggregate sum of US$1 2,395 .77 should have been deducted to make a total of a supposed home consumption value of $88,333.99 for 10,000 cartons or an average of $8.333 per carton; and that, in the determination of the home consumption value in the case of Entry No. 93324-74, the total amount of US$3,124.27 representing dutiable and non- dutiable charges, such as value of packing materials, cost of labor in packing and pier handling charges should have been excluded from the consular value of $31,092.48 to arrive at an alleged home consumption value of $27,968.21 for 5000 cartons or an average of 1 ~ : f) I ,_, '.

( DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2804 - 13 - $5 .593 per c ~ rton. These protests subsequently became Prote st No. 9475 and 9474, respectively. {p. 45, CTA re cord s.) We find no me ri t in petitioner's cause. To beg i. with, these values of $10.072899 per carton or a total of $100,728. 29 for 10,000 cartons in the case of Consular Invoice TK No. 033948 {Exh. / "3-C") '� Entry No. 89798-74; and $6.218496 per carton or a total of $3l,092.48 for 5 ,0 00 cartons i~ Consular Invoice TK No. 012915 {Exh. "4-C") ~ Entry No. 93324-74 , are clearly and unmistakably reflected on said consular invoices, under the last column thereof , as current wholesale home consumption v a lues. Con- sidering the official character of these consular invoices , and there being no reasonable g round to deny to these documents the faith and credence normally due the:!:eto (Commissioner of Customs and Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Miguel Fortich Celdran and Court of Tax Appeals, L-23425, February 26, 1968, 22 SCRA 74 2) '� no justific::tion can be found for reading that the prices writ ten under th ~ cclumn "curre :~. t who l esale home consumption value" are not the home consumption values o f the shipments in question. Peti t i : �n er 's submi ssion that sinc e these invoices do not contain columns for C & F and FOB values, these 1 (' 0 1....1 '

�DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2804 - 14 - prices are actually FOB , y alues i s therefore poStively without any basis. If these pr i c es are actually FOB values, that could have easily been done by a clari- fying statement or explanation to that effect. The law provides that the home consumption value shall be the value declared in the consular invoice. Ac c o rdingly, the value declared thereon, specially if written under the column "current wholesale home consumption value'', should be understood, in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, that it is the home con- sumption value of the article involved therein. Secondly , there is absolutely no evidence that these current wholesale home consumption values of the two shipments in question are actually their FOB values. On the contrary, the consular invoices of the merchandise, which are the best evidence as to the exact nature of the values reflected thereon de finitely and unequivocally declare that they are the current wholesale home consumption values of the imported articles. Where the consular invoice, executed in accordance with the law, states that the prices or J values of me rchandise mentioned thereon are their current wholesale home consumption values, that should not be read to FOB values. If biased and in- terested allegations or vague and uncertain averments, . '.

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2604 - 15 - standing alone and unsupported by convincing and more than mere ly preponder ant e v idence , are deemed suf f icient to overcome or c o ntradict what appears in a c lear and unequ i vocal manner on an official document, drawn up with all the formalities prescribe d by law, then that would throw wide open t he doors to fr auds up on t he C u s t om s . Thirdly, if the values or pr ices stated i n the con- sular invoices of merchandise as current wholesale horne consumption val ues are actually and tru l y FOB values, why is i t that petitione r declared them under oath in the import entries and internal revenue decla- r at ions of the shipments as their horne con s umption values? Petit ioner alleges that before the import decla- ration was file d for each of thes e two shipments , ~t s cus t oms broker verb a lly as ked for information fr ~ ( t he c ustoms appraiser concerned regarding the home consumption value to be declar ed for each shipmen t and the appraiser suggested tha t the value of US$10.072899 per carton appearing on the c ons ul ar invoice attached � to Entr y No. 89 79 8-74, and that the value of US$6.2118496 per carton appearing on t he consular invoice a t tached to Entry Po. 93324- 74, both unde r the column "current wholesa le home consumption value", be d e clared in the import entri es as home consumpt i on values. While its customs br oke r allegedly ~ i sa gre e d with the suggested values, he had

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2804 - 16 - t o declare them for fear that the import entr i . would be subjected to surcharge. Aside from the fact that absolutely no evidence whatsoeve L was presented regard ing this matter, the position taken by petitioner is assailable for a party aggrieved by wr0ngful or illegal action of tax collecting officers in the assessment and collection of duties and taxes has several remedies available to him dependent on the nature of t he injury sustained and the kind of relief sought. At any rate, the information given by the customs appraiser was merely a sugge stion, petitioner having the liberty or freedom to act according to its own judgment 0 f what is right and proper under the cir- cumstances, without willfulness or f avor. Even more, these s uggested values were apparently in conformity with the horne consumption values specified on the consular invoices as provided by Section 201 of the Tariff and Customs Code. And in this connection, such information or suggestion invites an equally plausible information or suggestion, namely, that where there exists a reasonable doubt as to the value or price of the imported article declared in the entry, the correct dutiable value of the article shall be ascerta i ned from the published home consumption value of such article as determined from the reports of revenue or commercial attaches, pursuant to Republic

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2804 - 17 - Act No. 5466 or other d iplomatic officers and from other data available to the Bureau of Customs. (pars. 2 & 3, Sec . 201, Tariff & Customs Code.} As testified to by the customs appraiser, who was presente d as a witness for petitioner, had not petitioner placed as entered value the amount of $6.218~ per carton with respect to the importation covered by Exhibit " B" and the amount of $10 . 08~ per carton with respect to t he shipment cove red by Exhibit "A", which were the home consumption values appearing on the consular i ~ ~ o ices, the customs appr 0 is er could have app lied t he then publishc? value s at the time of $6.721 per carton wi th respect to the 5,000 cartons of mackerel covered by Exhibit "B" and the value of $11.30 per ca r ton of canned mack e r e l cover e ~ by Ex hibit "A". (Home consump ti o n values ~--� subject a r ticles pub- . lished under CLs t om s Import Valuation Circualr No. 80-7_4 dated July 31, 1974.}. Conseque ntly, it was precisely these declarations unde r oath by petit ioner, which the customs appraiser accepted as correct, that prevented the imposition of the t hen published home consumption valu e s, which were much higher than th e decl ar ed home *Home cons u Dption value of s ubject article which was published unde r Customs Impo rt Valuation Circular No. 745-74 dated Oc t o b er 15, 1974. (E x h s . "C" , "1" & "1-l\".} **Home consumption value of su bject article as pu b lished under Customs I mp o rt Valuation Circular No. 747-74 dated October 15, 1974 . (Exhs . "D", "2" & "2-A".}

DECI S ION - CTA CASE NO. 2804 - 18 - consumption values. As aptly stated by respondent, having benefited from said declaration, petitioner cannot now be permitte d to back out from it. "In any event, the principle o f estoppel would s t ep in to prevent the plaintiffs from going back upon their own acts and represent- ations to the prejudice of the other party who relied upon them. This is a principle o f equity and natural justice, expressly adop ted in our Civil Code (Arts. 1 431 et.seq.) and articulated as one o f the conclusive presump- tions in Rul e 31, Sec. 3(a), of our Rules of Cour t as follows: - '(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, ac~ or omission, inte n- tionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, � he cannot, in any li t~ gation arising out of such declaration , a ~t , or omission, be permitted to falsify it." (La zo vs. Republic Surety & Insurance Co., Inc., L-~7365, January 30, 1970 , 31 SCRA 329.) Last, but not least, this case s e e ks the refund not only of exce ss cu s t o r.,s duty but also advance sales tax in the amounts of ~6,134.00 under Entry No . 89798-74 and ~1,724.00 under Entry No. 9332 4-T4. We note that insofar as the cJai.m for refund of t he advance sales tax is concerned , the Co7m is s ioner o f Internal Revenue has not been i mDl e aded as a party res p onde n t : n this judicial suit for recovery of an inte rnal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally collected so t ha t th is Court di d not acquire jurisdiction over him. (Section 306 Lnow Section 2917, National I nternal Revenue Code; see also Luna vs. Commis:ioner o f Customs, CTA Case

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2804 - 19 - No. 1947, November 29, 1968~ Philippine Wallboard Corp. vs. Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case No. 2136, September 30, 1972~ Procter & Gamble Philippine Manu- facturing Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case No. 2155, Resolution dated April 15, 1971~ Ace Publications, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs and Collector of Customs, L- 18808, May 29, 1964, 11 SCRA 147~ Tagum Electric Company, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case No. 2749, Resolution dated September 13, 1976.) We are not unaware of the provisions of the second paragraph of Section 1708 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, that "if as a result of the refund of customs duties there would necessarily result a corresponding refund of internal revenue taxes on the same importation, the Collector shall likewise certify the same to the Commissioner who shall cause the said excess taxes to be paid, refunded, or tax credited in favor of the importer, with advice to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue." However, under the fundamental rule of statutory constr uction that all statutes rela- ting to the same subject are to be construed with reference to each other so that e f fect may be given to all the provisions of each (Madrigal vs . Rafferty, 38 Phil. 414; 51 Am. Jur. 363) ~ the afore-quoted provision of law should be interpreted in connection with Section 306 1SG .-

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2804 - 20 - (now Section 29 2 ) ?f the K ~ tional Internal Revenue Code. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue being a person who is bound by the judgment to be rendered in a judicial suit for the recovery of any national inter- nal revenue tax alleged to have been erroneously or illegally assessed or collected, he is a party necessary to a complete determination and settlement of the questions involved therein . (Bell Robart Manufacturing Incorpo- ., rated vs. Commissioner of Customs, CTA Cases Nos. 2750,2751, 2752 and 2753, March 10, 1978.) The net result is that the horne consumption values of $10.08 and$5.218 per carton of the 10,000 cartons canned mackerel in natural oil, Hokkado brand, size 48xl5 oz ., declared in Entry No. 89798-74, and of the 5,000 cartons ~a nned mackerel in natural oil, Hokkado brand, size 48x7 oz., declared in Entry No. 93324-~4, respectively, which have been applied by the Bureau of Customs as the basis of the dutiable value of these shipments at the time of their importations, are in conformity with the provisions of Section 201 of the Tariff and Customs Code. The decision of respondent Commissioner of Customs affirming the decision of the Collector of Customs of Manila dated January 27, 1975, denying the claim for r ef und of petitioner Hiap Hong Trading Co., Inc. for alleged excess customs duty and advance sales tax paid on the two (2) _shipments of ' �1\:' t"'i �_)

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2804 - 21 - "Hokkado" brand mackerel i nvolv d in this appeal must therefore be sustained. WHEREFORE , the judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed at pe t i t ioner's costs. SO ORDE RED. Quezon City, Metro Manila, June 27, 1980. I CONCUR: -1 ,r:-.:;Qo