CTA Case No. 4661 (Decision)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON ~ITY PHILIPPINE PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER COR PORATION, Petitioner, -versus - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4661 THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONER. OF CUSTOMS, Respon dent. X- - - - ------X DE C I S I 0 N This ill! a peti tion fo r review instituted by Pe titioner from the denial by Respondent of its claim for r fund amount ing to a total of P14,362, 309 rep esenting cust oms duties paid on petroleum products. delivered to it by Petrophi 1 Corp oration (PETRON) for he per iod January 198 7 to December 1990. It appears from the records of the case that Philippine Phosphate Fertilizer Co rpor ation (Philphos) is a domestic corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing ferti lizers for domestic and international distributi on . It is a registered 5 J~..u

.I DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 2- Export Processing Zone enterprise under Presidential Decree No. 66, as amended. As part of its operational needs, it has to procure from local oil companies like Petron its fuel requirements like diesel, fuel oil and lubricant. In the sale of petroleum products to Philphos, customs duties and ad valorem taxes are passed on by Petron. Philphos believing that it is exempted from c ustoms duties and taxes on its purchase of fuel and other petroleum products filed a claim for refund of the corre spending duties passed on to it by Petron. The first claim was made under its letter dated October 22, . 1990 in the amount of P4,76 6 ,833.43 covering the period from January 1989 to June 1990. This claim was denied by the Commissioner of Customs in a letter, dated 26 November 1990, received by Petitioner on December 26, 1990. Again on August 21, 1991, Petitioner, through counsel, reiterated various claims for refund covering the period from January 1988 to December of 1990. This claim was likewise denied by the Respondent under his letter, dated September 13, 1991, received by Petitioner's counsel on September 2:6, 1991. This denial was in turn based on the 2nd [. u..L U

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 3- Indorsement, dated August 23, 1991, of the Acting Secretary of Finance denying the requ est for reconsideration by Philphos of the decision of the Respondent Commissioner. From this latter decision of the Res pond ent, Petitioner instituted the instant Petition for Review filed with this Court on October 26, 1991. From the memorandum of the Petitioner, it app ears that the following claims are involved in this case: 1. P2, 184,251. ~--~- representing customs duties passed on to Philphos from January to December 1987; 2. P 1, 584, 928 . .?. ~.. representing customs duties passed ori to Philphos from January to De cembe r 1988; 3 . P 4 , 7 6 6 , 8 3 3 . .~. ?. rep r e s en t in g c u s toms d uti e s passed on to Philphos from January 1989 to June 1990; 4. P1, 698,724. -~---~-- repr esentin g customs duties passed on to Philphos from July to �' December 1990; .[ ~ ' V.i.. I

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 4- 5. P4, 147,572. -~- 3 representi ng customs duties passed on to Philphos from January to May 1991. The afore mentioned facts were admitted by Respond ent in his answer inc luding the various amount of the refund claimed and although contained only in the memorandum of the Petitioner remains un controverted . Instead, Respondent concentrated to dispu~e the legal basis of the request for re fund. Petiti oner on its p art, alleged that it is entitl ed to the refund being cl a im e d pursuant to S ection 17 _of the President ial Decree No. 66, or the EPZA Law, also cit ing a previou s ruling of the Secretary of Finance on the matter. Petitioner _, advanc ed the concept of the Export Processing Zone as a foreign terri tory for customs purposes, for wh ich reason, when mer chand se i s brought into the zone, no Philippine tax may be imposed. It also cited Letter of Instruction No. 942, dated October 16, 1979 and paragraph 2 of Art icle 17 of Executive Order No. 226, considering merchandise brought to the zone as " xport sale".

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 5- Respondent on his part alleged that Section 17 of PD 66 does not apply in this particular case and that the cited opinion of Secretary Alfredo Pio de Roda has already been superseded by subsequent rulings of the Secretary of Finance. He cited instead Section 18 ( 1) of PO 66, as amended by PO 1449, which allows refunds through tax credit of ,I duties and taxes on supplies only if the supplies utilized in the manufacture, processing or production of export products form part of the finished products exported. On the argument concerning the application of constructive export under the cited LOI and Executive Order, Respondent argues that the same would apply only to merchandise which will . later form part of the finished products for export citing Section 127(d) of the Tax Code requiring actual exportation of product. Granting that this sale of petroleum �. products to zone enterprise meant tax refund, the same should accrue to the seller. Considering the foregoing allegations of the parties, the issue submitted for resolution of this Court is whether or not deliveries by local oil

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 6- companies of petroleum products to an export processing zone enterprise may not be subject to customs duties. We quote hereunder the pertinent provisions of Section 17(1) and Section 18(i) of Presidential Decree No. 66 as amended by P.D. No. 1449: P.O. No. 66 Nov. 20, 1972 Creating the Export Processing Zone Authority And Re vising Republic Act No. 5490 XXX XXX XXX Sec. 17. Tax Treatment of Merchandise in the Zone. - (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Decree, foreign and domestic merchandise , raw materials, supplies, articles, equipment , machineries, spare parts and wares of every description, except those prohibited by law, brought into the Zone to b e sold, stored, broken up, repacked, assembled, installed, sorted, cleaned, graded, or otherwise processed, manipulated, manufactured, mixed with foreign or domestic merchandise or used whether directly or indirectly in such activity, shall not be subject to customs and internal revenue laws and regulations no r to local tax ordinances, the provisions of law to the contrary notwithstanding. (2) = Merchandise purchased by a registered zone enterprise fro m the customs territory, if paid for in the United States dollar o r in any _, b2u

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 7- convertible foreign currency an d subsequently brought into the zone, shall be considered as exported, and the exporter thereof shall be entitled to the benefits allowed by law for such transaction. Sec. 18. Additional Incentive. - A zone registered enterprise shall also enjoy the following incentives and benefits xxx: (i) Tax credit. Every registered zone enterprise shall enjoy tax credit equivalent to sales, compensating and specific taxes and duties on supplies, raw materials and semi- manufactured products used in the manufacture, processing or production of its export products and forming part thereof: Provided, that . the tax credit shall accrue to the registered zone en t erprise only after the final product has in fact been exported xxx" Before going , into the specific interpretation of the ab ove provisions of law, we b elie ve a narration of the background, objec~ives and policies will assist this Court in arriving at a better construction of the aforequoted provisions of law. The Export Processing Zone was an original creation of Republic Act No. 5490 on June 21, 1969. It created a for eign trade zone in the Port of Mariveles and has declared the following policy as reason for its creation:

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 8- R.A. No. 5490 An Act Making Mariveles, Province of Bataan, a Port of Entry by Amending Secti on Seven Hundred one of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines. As Amended, Providing For the Establishment, Operation and Maintenance of a Foreign Trade Zone Therei n; Creating a Foreign Trade Zone Autho rity; And Authorizing The App ropriation of the Necessary Funds Therefor . Section 1. Declaration of Policy. - It is hereby to be the pol icy of the government to stimulate , expedite, encourage and promote foreign comme r ce as a means of making the Philippines a vital center. of international trade, of strengthening our for eign exchange position, of hastening i ndust ria lization, of overcoming d.omestic une�mployment, of accelerating the . development of the country and of insuring the economic security of all the people as provi ded in the Cons titution. To attain said objectives, the law amended section 701 of the Tari ff and Customs Code and provides as follow st "Sec. 701. Collection Districts and Ports of Entry Thereof. XXX XXX XXX

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 9- There is here by establi shed i n the Marive les Port a foreign trade zone herein re f erre d to as the Zone. Foreign and domestic merchandise of every description exce pt such as is prohibited by law, may, without being , subject to the customs and internal rev~n ue laws and regulations of the Philippines, except as othentise provided. in th is Act, be brought into the Zo n and ma y b e store d, sold, xhibited, broken up, repacked, assembled, distributed, sorted, graded, cleaned, mixed w th �o ign or domestic merchandise, o r otherwise man i pulated, or be manufactured except as otherwise provided in this Act, and be exported, destroyed or sent into customs territory o~ the Philippines therefr om, i n the original package or otherwise, under the following term and eondi tions r Republic Act No. 5490 failed to mention as an _, in centive the gran t of ta~ cred it for raw materials ut ilized in the manufacture of finis hed products exported. This law was substant ial ly amended by Presidential Decree No. 66 on November 20, 1972, renaming the foreign trade zone as an export processing zone. Thus t he latter law expanded the operation of the zone by authori zing the opening of more export processing zone in other part s of the country. The same policies and objectives were likewis e recited in thi s latter law. The presi dential deciee expanded t he incentives that a

DECIS ON CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 10 - zone enterprise may enjoy under the law. It provides the incentive ..u.. nder Section 17(1)(2) aforequoted which is similar to the incentive provided under Section 701 of the Tariff and Customs Code as amended by said Republic Act No. 5490. Subsequently, Pre side nt ial Decree No. 1449 was issued on June 11, 1978 introducing several amendment s to Presidential Decree No. 66. Among others, it amend ed Secti on 18 by adding new paragraphs one of which is the aforequoted Section 18(i) which grants tax cred it to every registered zone enterprise equival ent to the / sales, jomp ensating an d ~ec ifi c ta xes an d ~uties on supplie s & raw materials� used in the manufacture of products exported and formin g part there of . P.O . 1449 did not touch on Section 17 of P.D. 66. However, on October 16 , 1979 , Letter of Instruction No. 942 was issued by the President which provides among others that: XXX XXX XXX "7. Sales an-d delivery of products to bonded warehouse of. export-oriented manufacturers and to export processing

_, DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 11 - zone enterprises can be c onsidered as "export sales" and products constructively exporte d, so that tax credit and duty drawback can be availed of immediately, without awaiting for actual exportation of the finished products abroad. For thi s purposes, the requirement that the exporter has in fact exported shall include constructive exportation as above defined." Lately, the EPZA law wa s again amended by Executive Order No . 226, otherwise known as the Omnibus Investment Code of 1987. Section 17(1) & ( 2 ) afore quoted wa s r e ta ined with a little modification of the l a tte r subsection . The requirement on the foreign e xchange pa yment for merchandise was delete d. Thus, the provision reads as follows: E.O. No. 226 The Omnibus Investment Code of 1987 ART. 7 7. Ta x Treatment of Herchandi se in the Zone. ( 1) Except as otherwise provided in this Code, foreign and domestic merchandise, raw materials, supplies, articles, equipment, machineries, spare parts and wares of every description, except those prohibited by law, brought into the z one to be sold, store~, broken up, repacked, assembled, installed, sorted, cle a ned, graded, or otherwise processed, manipulated, manufactured, mixed wiith foreign or domestic merchandise whether directly or indirectly related in such

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 12 - activiy, shall not be subject to customs and internal revenue laws and regulations nor to local tax ordinances, the provision of law to the contrary notl>Ti thstanding. (2) Merchandise purchased by a registered zone enterprise from the customs terri tory and subsequently brought into the zone, shall be considered as export sales and the exporter shall be entitled to the benefits allowed by law for such transaction. The aforequoted provisions of law and other incentives for export processing zone enterprise are all incorporated under Book VI of the said Executive Order. In the incorporation the previous Section 18 ( i) of P. D. 66 as amended by P. D. 1449 was not reproduced under this Book but was merely referred by Article 78 as one the additional incentives, an EPZA registered enterprise may be entitled under Article 39. The incentives referred to under Article 39 are those that are normally enjoyed by BOI registered enterprises. .) We can see that from the above presentation of the laws involved, the provision of Section 17 ( 1) is maintained as a principal incentive or source of incentives. It has never been deleted from the vL.:r ;. .4, u

DEC I SION CTA CASE NO . 4661 - 13 - prov ision of the EPZA law. Unl i ke S ec ti o n 18(i) which may h a ve b ee n ins erted by P. D. 14 4 9 as an add i tional incent ive t hinking t ha t i t wi ll s e r ve as an a dd itional attraction to zone e nterpri s es. A clos~ a n alysis of the s aid Section 17(1)(2) -'! \ ........ wi l l show that it o r domestic t hose prohibite d by law t o be bro ught into t he zone f or s ale, storage, repac k ing, p r o c e ssin~, manufacturing, mix e d wi th foreign o r do mest i c me rc h an di se or .'::l. f!i..~.cl.. ... ~.h~. ~.h.~.:t.:....cl.!~~g!.). � .<?. :t.: .;~.9.:.:l:E.~ g-~.!. � i n such activity and sha ~- ~..........~9. ~.........1?..~ ......!3.. ~1.?..1~. <::!..~..........to nor to l ocal tax ordinances. This privi l ege will be enjoy ed notwiths t a nding the provision o f other law to the contrary . Contrary to the all e9ation of th e Resp ondent th at Section 17 ( 1) do es n ot p rov i de fo r du ty and tax exempti on privile ge, this Court di s ag re e s. The ph ra se "shall not be s ub je c t t o c u s t o ms and inte r na l revenue laws and regul ations nor to local tax ordinances, the provi sions of law to the c ont rary notwithstandi ng" c annot b e interp re ted in

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 14 - any other manner than to mean that merchandise or supplies brought into the zone are exempt from customs duties and taxes. The incentive given under Section 17 ( 1) is broader than a mere tax exemption. The phrase is so broad to include not only the exemption from customs duties and taxes but everything required in the enforcement of the customs and internal revenue laws save on the exceptions and conditions specified in the EPZA law itself. Considering that the customs and internal revenue laws are primari ly enacted to impose duties and taxes, the phrase cannot be interpreted to exclude these impositions. More so, the phrase will also include exemption from other rules and regulations which are normally followed in the discharge of importation such as the filing of import entries, examination and appraisal of goods by customs authorities and other requirements attendant to the importation of goods into the country. In fact, contrary to the allegation of Respondent, said Section 17(1) is cited by the Export Proc essing Zone Authority as source of tax

DECISION CTA CASE NO . 4661 - 15 - exempt ion privileges in the issuance of its implementing rules and regulations . Thus Section 1 of Rule IV of the "Amended Rules and Regulations to Implement Presidential Decree No. 66, as Further Am ended by Executive Order No . 226 Oth er wi s e Known as the Omnibus Investments Code of 1987" mentioris "exemption" citing paragraph 1 , Article 77 (Sec . 17 un der P.O. 66) of th e Code. Likewise, Section 1(8) Rule VIII grants tax credit on domestic capital equipment, Section 3 of the sa me Rule grant s exemption from Value Added Tax on local purchase, Sect ion 1 of Rule IX on tax and duty e xemption of the importa~ion of capital equipment and Section 2 of s id Rule IX al low s the tax and duty free importation of con struction mater ials , all cited Article 77 ( 1) as source of l ega l basis. Unfortunately, the said implement ing regulation f ails to cover all possi ble situati ons that may o cc ur in its impl em entation. One si tu ati on is the tax treatment of petroleum products supplied by local oil companies to an export processing zone reg istered enterprise. This as the sub j ect of the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent which this Court is called upon to interpret.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 46 6 1 - 16 - S e ction 17 ( 1 ) covers d o mestic me rchandise, raw ma t eri ls, upplies , ar ti c le an d wa res of every de scription, except those prohibited by l a w, _, broug ht 1nto the 2:o ne to b e s o d, stored, broken u p , r e p a cked, as se mb le d, i n s t a lled, sorted, cle aned, or o herwise processed, ma n ipul a ted 1 manuf actu re , mi x e d o r used directly or indi rec tl y in such activi ty s h a ll not be subject to cu - to ms nd internal r evenue laws and r e gu l a tions . Oil pr oducts p r od uc ed by loc a l oil comp anies may be c l a s sif i ed as domestic me rc handise, r aw materials or su p plies as legally d efi n ed in . t h e S upreme Co urt case of f.<?..!!l.ll_I. ~ .~. ~-J.::..<?..l}..~E t ;. .<?...; .........q.~-~. ~.<?..ffi.~..........Y..!!L~......9..~.!.~.~. ?.c...........L~-~-~.. P..P.~. ~-~..'3.. .>....L ........!.~.~---~- (GR No . L - 130 67, Dec. 29,1 95 9, . 106 Ph il 82 9 ) which states that supp lies or materi a s hall i nclude gas oline and other p troleum products fo r purposes of e xe mption fr om c ustoms d uti es un der Article 103 of R e~ublic No. 38 7. For what p urpo s e, among others, thes e products may b,e b ro ug h t into the zone for processing, man i p u lation , m nufacture, mixed with foreign and domestic merc h and is e o r used directly or ind irectly in such acti vi t y. In our particular

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 17 - case, the petroleum products deli vere d to Petitioner is used in the processing of fertilizer fo r export. While Respondent may be correct that these products did not form part of the fertilizer exported nevertheless , the law does not provide for such requirement but only requires t he use of sucA,__ materials directly or indirectly in such activi ty. The use of petroleum produc ts like bunker oil as fuel will asil y f all und e r the phrase "used directly or indirectly in suc h activity". Clearly these petroleum products can easily qua l ify for tax and dut y f r ee privileges under Section 17 ( 1) of P.O. GG. Regarding t he allegation of the Respondent that Section lS ( i) shall gove rn the situation a nd therefore th claim f9r refund of customs duties should be deni d as ~he bunker oil used as fue l did not actually for m part of the finished product exported. This Court believes that this section introduced by P . D. 1 449 merely grants additional incentive to an EPZA registered enterprise and was not meant to superse de Section 17 of P.D. 66. This is clear as the heading clearly indicates that it

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 18 - is an "additional incentive". The grantee of the incentive may or may not avail itself of it. In fact, this Court would interpret that this incentive as a surplusage. Its provision was not intended to rest rict the enjoyment of the privileges under Section 17, otherwise the amending law, P. D. 1449, should have - stated so. On the contrary it wa s meant only as an incentive in add ition to those already being enjoy ed by an EPZA registered enterprise. This i nterpretation is s tr engthened by the enactmen t of E.O. 226 (The Omnibus Investments Code) . Th e _tax t reatment, of merchandise inside the zone was re-enacted under Article 77 of Book VI of the Code bu t not Section 18(1). Said Section 18(1) was deleted from book VI gove rning incentives of EPZA reg istere d enterp~ise and was in~orporated as one of the incentives of a BOI registered enterprise under Book I wh ich an EPZA registered enterprise may also enjoy as an additional incentive under Art. 78. Furthermo re, under paragraph ( 2 ) of said Section 17 , me rchandise purchase d by a registered .I

.) DEC ISI ON CTA CASE HO. 4661 - 19 - zone enterprise from the customs te r r itory, i f paid f or in foreig n currency and s ubsequently brought i nto the zone shal l be considere d as expo rted and , t he exporter shal l be entitled t o the benefits a llo~ted by law for uch transa cti o n. This p rovision was reit~rat e d with . mo d i fication u nd e r Letter of Instruc t io n No . 942 i ued o n Oc t o ber 16, 1979 wh ch provides as fol lows; " 7 � �.~. !.~. ~.... ~ .1!..9..... 4..~.J..;.Y..~ E.Y......9...t ... P..~.9.9..':l..9.. ~.~. to bonded warehous e of e xport-or i e n t e d manu fact. u r e r s and .~.9............~.~.P..Q.;:.!:...... P..I .9..9..~.~.~. ~.~.9.. ~.9..~.~.......~.~.~.~.!:.P..! . ~.':s..~.~.........9~D:...... P.~...... . ~. 9..~.~J.~.~. E ~. ~ ......?. .~ .:�..~.~.P..2.E.!:......................... ... ?.1~. :.:;..::. and p roducts constructivel y exp orted, so .~.~.~ ~......... ...~.~.~ e. ..... .9. :�.~.~H.~.....~.~.~..... g.~.~.Y..........9.:E.~.~-~~~.9. ~..........9..~.1!.. ...... ~ ~Y.?..:i.:.! . ~. 4. . .c>...( .........J:.m.~ ~.9.!..~.~~~.JY.. t ':!. .................. :i,.t:.h.Q. Y..!=:. . ...... ..~.~~.i.:.~A!:l..9.. . . . . . J. 9...!: .~.9..!:.~.~.J......... ~. ~.P..9.E.~.~-~..!.9..!1 o f the f in i s he d products abroad. For thi purpo se s, the req u ire me n t that the expor ter has i n fac t exported shall include cons t ruc t i ve exportation a s above defined . " Final ly under paragraph ( 2 ) of E.O . 226 a fo req uoted, th e purcha se of merchandi s e by a r egistered zone e nterpr ise was l i k e wi se con s idered as export sale and the exporte r shal l be entitled t o the bene fi ts allowed by l aw f o r such transaction. Th i a will enti tl e the exp orter to du t y drawback unde~ Section 106 o f th e Tar iff and c ustoms Code and tax cre di t under Sec t i on 127(d) of '

DECISION CTA CASE HO. 4661 - 20 - the National Internal Revenue Code. Considering that pursuant to the aforequoted provision of the LOI and E.O. 226, the mere act of selling and delivering products to the export processing zone enterprise can be considered already as export sale without awaiting for actual exportation, the allegation of the Respondent that the article sold to an EPZA registered enterprise should form part of the finished product actually exported will hold no water at all. All the above incentives spring from the concept that an export processing zone is carved out of the Philippine territory for purposes of enforcement of customs and tax laws. So that the area or areas fixed or� delimited by presidential proclamation or by board resolution of the Export Processing Zone Authority as export piocessing zone J shall be referred to as the "zone" and the national territory outside of the zone shall be called "customs territory" (Section 2(e) & (f) of the Amended Rules and Regulations to Implement P.O. 66). The basic policy in establishing a zone is to attract enterprises especially foreign investors

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 21 - who will be manufacturing products primarily for export and be able to do so without their supplies and raw materials entering, and the export products leaving the Philippine territory within the context of customs and revenue regulations. Export is the backbone of our economy and is being encouraged by providing enterprises with all the incentives including those which we have discussed above. For which reason the law further states that "All doubts concerning the benefits and incentives granted enterprises and investors by the Code shall be resolved in favor of investors and registered enterprises_". (Article 79 E.O. 226.) In view of all the foregoing, this Court holds that bunker fuel oil and other oil products sold and delivered by local oil companies to an EPZA registered enterprise shall be exempted from customs duties and internal revenue taxes and if said duties and taxes were passed on by the supplier to the EPZA registered enterprise duty drawback and tax credit shall be granted to the latter pursuant to the provisions of Section 17(1)(2) of P.D. 66 as amended under Article J7(1)(2) of E.O. 226.

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 22 - .) However, from the records of this case the following facts are very apparent : ( 1) The P2, 164 , 251 . .?.. ~.. clai m representing customs duties allegedly paid by Philphos for the period January to December 1987 should be deni ed for want of a valid claim for refund. Petitioner never file d a c laim for re fu nd co ver i ng thi s a mount wi t h the Commissione r of Customs. Hence, there can be no valid decision of the Comm issi oner of Cust oms to appeal from; (2) The same is true with regard to th e amount. of P4, 14 7, 57 2 � .~..?. representing customs duties alle gedly paid fo r the period January to May 1991. There was neither a claim for refund f iled nor a decisi on by the Commissioner of Customs; ( 3 ) The am ount of P4, 7 66 ,833 . .~..~. representing customs duties allegedly paid by Philphos for the period January 1989 .to June 1990 should also be deni ed for fail ure of t he Petitioner to appeal on time from the decision of the Commissioner denying said c laim. The records show that the claim was .)

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 23 - denied by t he Responde nt in a letter , dated November 26, 1990, and received by Petitioner on December 26, 1990 . No appeal or petition for review was ever filed from said denial within the 30-day period. In all the above instances, th is Court has to dismiss the said claims for refund for lack of jurisdiction. The remaining valid 'claims are those covered by t~e letter, dated August 21, 1991, of the counsel of Petitioner covering the period from January to December 1988 in the amount of P1,584,928 . .~"~' and from July 199 0 to December 1990 in the amount of P 1 , 6 9 8 , 7 2 4 � .~. ~. . Of the amoun t covered by these two claims, only the following amounts were substanti ated by the Petitioner with evidence a ( 1) P166, 989 . .~.-~. covering customs duties paid for the month of JUne 1989 (Exh. "A") 1 ( 2 ) P 4 4 9 , 7 9 3 . ~-"~" cove r 1 n 9 customs d uti e s p a 1 d for the month of October 1989 (Exh . "A-1"). r .. , 00.

� DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 24 - They constitute statement of fact number 4 (Annexes A & A-1) in the Petition for Review and were admitted by Respondent in his answer. The total amount involved is only P616,782.~~- In view of all the foregoing, this Court hereby orders the refund of the amount of P616,782 ..~.~- t o Petitioner . SO ORDERED. Que zon City, Metro Manil a, ay 31, 1993. ~ fl~J~ RAMON 0. DE YRA Associate J dge WE CONCUR: ACOSTA~~---~- Judge ~. GRUBA Judge � .)

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 4661 - 25 - CERT I F I CATI 0 H I hereby certify that this decision was reached a fter due consultation among the members of the Court of Tax Appeals in accordance with Section 13, Article VIII of the Const i tution . C''"" 7;;; ~. ~ ARNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Judge Court of Tax Appeals .) \l J0' . v-