TOYOTA MOTOR PHILIPPINES CORPORATION V. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City FIRST DIVISION TOYOTA MOTOR CTA CASE. NO. 9250 Members: PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, -versus- Del Rosario, P.J. , Chairperson, and Manahan, JJ. COMMISSIONER OF 2~~1- ----------- CUSTOMS, Respondent. Promulgated: ;f/ )D()-- ----------- X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - J- A- N- - 1- -9- - -X AMENDED DECISION DEL ROSARIO, P.J.: For the Court's resolution are the following: 1. Petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 2 July 2020) filed on July 22, 2020, sans respondent's comment thereon; 1 and, 2. Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 2 July 2020) filed on August 19, 2020, with petitioner's Comment/Opposition (to the Motion for Reconsideration dated 14 August 2020) filed on October 12, 2020. Both motions assail the Court's Decision promulgated on July 2, 2020, the dispositive portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, the present Petition for Review filed by Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent Commissioner of Customs is ORDERED TO REFUND AND/OR ISSUE A TAX 1 In the Resolution dated November 20, 2020 , the Court denied respondent's Motion to Admit with Comment (On Petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration dated 22 July 2020) filed via registered mail on October 26, 2020l1}

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 Page 2 of22 CREDIT CERTIFICATE in favor of petitioner Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation in the amount of P119,858, 119.77, representing excess customs duties and value-added tax paid on its importations from Japan of Complete Built Up motor vehicles with a cylinder capacity above three thousand cubic centimeters (3,000 cc) for the period January 1 to June 30, 2010. SO ORDERED." Petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration In seeking partial reconsideration of the assailed Decision and praying for the Court to grant its claim for refund in the amount of P128,963, 113.83, petitioner raises the following grounds: 1. The disallowance of the Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declarations (IEIRDs) and/or Single Administrative Documents (SADs) which were not machine validated was contrary to the administrative regulations applicable during the time of petitioner's importation of goods. Under Customs Administrative Order (CAO) No. 10-2008 dated November 12, 2008 and Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) Nos. 6-2009 and 27-2009, IEIRDs and/or SADs need not be presented to the authorized agent bank for machine validation as the Statements of Settlement of Duties and Taxes (SSDTs) are sufficient to prove the payment of duties and taxes; 2. Even assuming that the IEIRDs and the SADs are unreliable, the Court could have ascertained petitioner's payment of customs duties and taxes from the SSDTs and the totality of the series of documents it presented in support of each importation; 3. The original Importer's Sworn Statements (ISS) were duly signed and notarized, and the fact that the amended ISS were unsigned/unnotarized should not materially affect its refund claims; and, 4. As this refund case is based on the equitable principle of solutio indebiti, the Court should not impose strict substantiation/invoicing requirements similar to those applied to Value-Added Tax (VAT) refund cases. Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration In support of his Motion, respondent puts forth the following groundso~

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 Page 3 of22 1. Petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies renders the Petition premature and without a cause of action. Based on Sections 1708 and 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP) and Section 7(a)(4) of Republic Act (RA) No. 9282, petitioner should have first invoked the authority of the Commissioner of Customs (COC) to direct the District Collector to act on its claim before filing the Petition before the Court; and, 2. Executive Order No. 905 (EO 905) has no retroactive effect and does not cover petitioner's subject imports, pursuant to Article 4 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and the 2007 pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vs. Commission on Audit.2 In its CommenUOpposition, petitioner counter-argues that: 1. Respondent's argument [with respect to the issue of prematurity] is erroneous and a mere-rehash of the arguments already considered by the Court; 2. The Court correctly held that petitioner timely filed its Petition and that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies should not prejudice its claim; 3. As aptly ruled by the Court, the intent of EO 905 was to implement the 0% duty starting January 1, 2010 which is consistent with treaty obligation embodied under the Agreement between Japan and the Republic of the Philippines for an Economic Partnership (JPEPA); 4. The principle on non-retroactivity of laws does not apply to EO 905 as executive order is not a law passed by the Legislature but an order promulgated by the Chief Executive of the Philippines enacted to implement or execute a law; 5. Even if the principle of non-retroactivity of laws can apply, the first exception thereto provided under Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals case, that is - when the law itself so expressly provides - is present in this case. Both the JPEPA and EO 905 have expressly provided for the elimination of customs duties effective January 1, 201 0; 6. To deny petitioner of its right to a reduced duty rates on the subject importations would be tantamount to reneging on treaty obligations under the JPEPA and the principle of pacta sunt servanda which demands performance of obligations in good faith. 2 G.R. No. 169752, September 25, 2007."1

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 Page 4 of22 THE COURT'S RULING Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is bereft of merit Respondent's argument on exhaustion of administrative remedies is a mere rehash of his previous argument which was duly considered and addressed in the assailed Decision. The argument of respondent that EO 905 must be applied prospectively must also fail. As succinctly put by petitioner, both the JPEPA and EO 905 have expressly provided for the elimination of customs duties effective January 1, 2010. The effectivity of JPEPA and EO 905 has been extensively discussed on pages 19 to 22 of the assailed Decision. Nonetheless, the Court finds it worthy to emphasize that the JPEPA, having been signed by then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and subsequently ratified by the Philippine Senate, was transformed into a municipal law. Treaties become part of the law of the land through transformation pursuant to Article VII, Section 21 of the Constitution which provides that "[n]o treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate." Thus, treaties or conventional international law must go through a process prescribed by the Constitution for it to be transformed into municipal law that can be applied to domestic conflicts. 3 1t has been said that once transformed, the provisions of the treaty become enforceable within the domestic sphere and shall become part of the same class as a statute duly enacted by Congress. 4 Moreover, one of the oldest and most fundamental rules in international law is pacta sunt servanda - international agreements must be performed in good faith. A treaty engagement is not a mere moral obligation but creates a legally binding obligation on the parties. 5 3 Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines vs. Health Secretary Francisco T. Duque et al., G.R. No. 173034, October 9, 2007. 4 Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Galang el a/., CTA EB Nos. 1721 & 1868 (CTA Case No. 9081), February 5, 2020. 5 Taiiada et al. vs. Angara, et al., G.R. No. 118295, May 2, 1997t:!!/

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 Page 5of22 More importantly, treaties have the force and effect of law in this jurisdiction.6 With the elimination of customs duties on motor vehicles with cylinder capacity of above 3,000 cc starting January 1, 2010 under the JPEPA, the Philippine Government is bound to adhere to its legal obligation in good faith as non-compliance therewith would have negative implications on international relations, aside from unduly discouraging foreign investors. 7 As discussed in the assailed Decision, EO 905 unequivocally intended to implement the 0% duties on importations of motor vehicles with cylinder capacity exceeding 3,000 cc starting January 1, 2010. Undoubtedly, the issuance of EO 905 which modified import duties in accordance with the JPEPA was a valid exercise of power vested upon the President of the Philippines under Section 402 (a) (2) of the TCCP 8 It is settled that the general rule barring delegation of legislative power is subject to certain exceptions allowed in the Constitution, one of which is the "delegation by Congress to the President of the power to fix 'tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts within the framework of the national development program of the Government' under Section 28 (2) of Article VI of the Constitution."9 All told, the Court finds no sufficient basis to grant respondent's Motion for Reconsideration. 6 Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 188550, August 28, 2013 citing Luna vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100374- 75, November 27, 1992. 7 Deutsche Bank AG Manila Branch vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 188550,August28,2013. 8 TCCP, SECTION 402. Promotion of Foreign Trade. -a. For the purpose of expanding foreign markets for Philippine products as a means of assisting in the economic development of the country, in overcoming domestic unemployment, in increasing the purchasing power of the Philippine peso, and in establishing and maintaining better relationship between the Philippines and other countries, the President, upon investigation by the Commission and recommendation of the National Economic Council, is authorized from time to time: (1) xxx; and (2) To modify import duties (including any necessary change in classification) and other import restrictions, as are required or appropriate to carry out and promote foreign trade with other countries: Provided, however, That in modifying import duties no increase shall exceed by five times or the decrease be more than fifty per cent of the rate of duty expressly fixed by this Code. 9 Umali vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 204371, April 22, 2014; J.V. Bautista vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 203974. April22, 2014.r1}

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 Page 6of22 Petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration is partly meritorious In its Motion for Partial Reconsideration, petitioner prays that the disallowed amount of P128,963, 113.8310 be granted and the grounds for the disallowance thereof be reversed. A reading of the assailed Decision shows that petitioner's claim for refund was not granted in full. The substantial reduction was brought about by the following: (i) importations without corresponding IEIRDs/SADs or with unreadable IEIRDs/SADs were not considered by the Court; (ii) IEIRDs and/or SADs without machine validation by AABs were not accepted by the Court as sufficient to prove the payment of customs duties and taxes; and, (iii) the Amended ISS were not given probative value. Indispensability of IEIRDs!SADS to prove the fact of importation; and, SSDTs to prove payment of customs duties and taxes Petitioner insists that even assuming that some IEIRDs/SADs are unreliable, the Court should have considered the totality of documents it submitted in granting the refund claim. Notwithstanding the defects in the IEIRDs/SADs, or the non-submission thereof, the amount of customs duties and taxes which petitioner paid could have been ascertained from the SSDTs and other documents submitted in support of each importation. To be entitled to its claim, petitioner must prove, among others, (i) the fact of importation; and, (ii) the payment of customs and duties on said importation. To prove the fact of importation and the corresponding payment of customs duties and taxes through the automated Electronic to Mobile (e2m Customs System) under CAO No. 10-2008 dated November 12, 2008, it is imperative that the importer presents, at the very least, BOTH the: (1) IEIRDs/SADs, which must contain the necessary details and statements as required by law, rules and 10 Should only be limited to P128,963, 111.99 or the difference in the total refund claim in the Petition of Review (P248,821 ,231.76) less the refund granted in the assailed Decision (t-119,858, 119.77).~

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 Page 7of22 regulations, albeit sans machine validation by the AABs as will be discussed hereunder; and, (2) SSDTs which show that the Bureau of Customs (BOC) has received the payment of customs duties and taxes through the AABs. Relevance of IEIRDs!SADs Section 1304 of the TCCP provides that no importation shall be effected unless the importer submits to the BOC a written declaration containing the required details regarding the importation, as follows: "SEC. 1304. Declaration of the Import Entry. - Except in case of informal entry, no entry of imported article shall be effected until there shall have been submitted to the Collector a written declaration under penalties of falsification or perjury, in such form as shall be prescribed by the Commissioner, containing statements in substance as follows: a. That the entry delivered to the Collector contains a full and true statement of all the articles which are the subject of the entry; b. That the invoice and entry contain a just and faithful account of the actual cost of said articles, including and specifying the value of all containers or coverings, and that nothing has been omitted, therefrom or concealed whereby the government of the Republic of the Philippines might be defrauded of any part of the duties lawfully due on the articles; c. That, to the best of the declarant's information and belief, the invoice and all bills of lading to the articles are the only ones in existence relating to the importation in question and that they are in the state in which they were actually received by him; d. That, to the best of the declarant's information and belief, the entry, invoice and bill of lading, and the declaration thereon are in all respects genuine and true, and were made by the person by whom the same purpose to have been made, respectively." (Boldfacing supplied) The written declaration referred to in Section 1304 of the TCCP is the IEIRD/SAD which must be duly filled out by the importer or its broker and submitted to the BOC within the prescribed period. 11 It is thus important that valid and legible IEIRDs/SADs, which contain all the required details, must be submitted in evidence to prove the entry into the Philippines of the imported articles. Petitioner's failure to do so is certainly fatal to its cause. 11 Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. 195876, December 5, 2016."/

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 Page 8of22 Meanwhile, as correctly pointed out by petitioner, to prove the payment of customs duties and taxes on articles imported under the SOC's e2m system, the submission of the SSDTs is sufficient pursuant to CAO No. 10-2008 dated November 12, 2008 which, among others, discontinued the practice of having to present IEIRDs/SADs to AASs for machine validation, viz.: "4.2.3. Discontinuing the Direct Payment to the AAB. Consistent with the national roll-out schedule of the e2m Customs, the procedure of presenting the printed IEIRD or SAD to an AAB for final payment and machine validation of the amount collected shall be discontinued. In lieu thereof, the final payment will be debited by the concerned AAB from the designated debit account upon receipt of the final payment instructions from Customs via the payment gateway, subject to the bank's confirmation and security procedures for payment instructions." (Boldfacing supplied) CAO No. 10-2008 also delineated the relevant responsibilities of the SOC and AASs anent the payment of customs duties and taxes under the SOC's e2m system, viz.: "5.0 Responsibilities XXX XXX XXX 5.3 BOC 5.3.1 Send payment instructions to the Payment Gateway. 5.3.2 Receive confirmation of debit from the Payment Gateway. 5.3.3 Issue statement of settlement of duties and taxes for completely processed declaration to importers. 5.3.4 Issue CA and CCN to importers. 5.3.5 Receive the AAB Reference number and upload this to the client registration database. 5.3.6 Send electronic notice of abandonment to concerned banks in line with paragraph 4.2.5 of this Order. 5.3.7 Send electronic lED to the payment gateway. 5.5AAB 5.5.1 Receive payment instructions from the payment gateway.~

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 Page 9 of22 5.5.2 Debit the importer's nominated accounUs subject to the banks. 5.5.3 Credit the account of the BOC maintained with the collecting bank and remit to the BSP for the account of BOC following the guidelines of the existing BAP-BOC MOA. 5.5.4 Send payment confirmation to the payment gateway. 5.5.5 Refuse payments for abandoned shipments in line with paragraph 4.2.5 and 5.3.6. The Commissioner of Customs shall issue a separate Order for handling shipments deemed abandoned under this Administrative Order. 5.5.6 For L/Cs canceled, send notice of cancellation to BOC through the payment gateway." (Boldfacing supplied) The Court holds that the presentation of machine-validated IEIRDs/SADs for importations which were undertaken under the BOG's e2m system does not appear indispensable to prove the fact of payment of customs duties and taxes. The presentation in evidence of the SSDTs issued under the e2m customs system clearly suffices to prove that the customs duties and taxes on imported articles have been paid. Nonetheless, the submission of the IEIRDs/SADs (albeit not machine validated by the AABs) is necessary to establish the connection between the source documents, i.e., certificates of origin, commercial invoices, packing list and waybills, and the SSDT, or the proof of payment of customs duties and taxes. Without the IEIRDs/SADs, the Court cannot reasonably ascertain or match a particular importation with the customs duties and taxes paid as indicated in the SSDTs. As admitted by petitioner, while SSDTs make reference to IEIRDs/SADs, the details of the items imported and declared in the IEIRDs/SADs are not specified. On the other hand, the SSDTs issued by the BOC under the e2m customs system, which have matching details and customs reference number with the IEIRDs/SADs, are competent proof of payment of the necessary customs duties and taxes. To illustrate, by way of example, the SSDT (Exhibit "P-6-F") indicates "C9837" as Customs Reference Number. Aside from~

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 Page 10 of22 Customs Reference Number, however, there is no way by which the Court may ascertain the imported articles covered by the SSDT. Thus, an examination of the IEIRD would then show that petitioner imported thirty (30) units of Toyota vehicles, including one (1) unit of "VDJ200L- GNTEZ". The Certificate of Origin (Exhibit "P-6-A") shows one (1) unit of "Toyota LC200 VDJ200L-GNTEZ, CBU, 4,461 cc;870333". The Invoice/Packing List (Exhibit "P-6-B-1" to "P-6-B-3") shows thirty (30) units of Toyota vehicles, including one (1) unit of "Toyota Land Cruiser Wagon Diesel Model VDJ200L-GNTEZ". The Packing List (Exhibit "P- 6-C-1" to "P-6-C-2") indicates one (1) unit of "VDJ200L-GNTEZ", and the total imported goods of thirty (30) units. Finally, the Waybill (Exhibit "P-6-D") shows the total imported goods of thirty (30) units, including one (1) unit of "VDJ200L-GNTEZ". As aforestated, without the IEIRD, the Court cannot ascertain whether the SSDT corresponds to the importation supported by the source documents. On the basis of the foregoing, the Court sustains the disallowance of the following Complete Built Up (CBU) importations of Land Cruiser and Lexus based on the stated grounds: Import ExhibH Ref. No. Amount Ground for Disallowance I Entry No. CBU lmporlations- Land Cruiser C1348610 "P-8-A" to "P-8-H" .. 7,954,169.44 Unreadable lEIRD C2776210 "P-11-A" to "P-11-D"; C2776310 "P-11-F" to "P-11-H" 4,379,092.48 No IEIRD/SAO submitted C3994210 "P-12-A" to "P-12-D"; "P-12-F-1" to "P-12-H" 9,634,002.56 No IEIRO/SAD submitted C994410 "P-14-A" to "P-14-0-2"; "P-14-F" to "P-14-H" 11,974,841.76 No IEIRD/SAD submitted "P-15-A" to "P-15-D-2"; "P-15-F" to "P-15-H" 16,992,759.84 No IEIRD/SAD submitted C5375910 N/A .. 743,283.52 No supporting documents submitted Total 51,678,149.60 CBU Importations - Lexus C3404210 "P-28-A" to "P-28-E" .. 5,117,384.00 No SSDT or proof of payment submitted "P-218-A" to "P-218-D"; C6600110 .. 8,367,728.00 No IEIRD/SAD submitted I Total "P-218-F" 13,485,112.00 I The disallowance of the following Knocked Down (KD) importations is likewise sustained: Import Reference No. Date of Customs Duties Excess VAT Ground for Entry Payment per Disallowance No. January SSDT C9011 "P-60-A" to "P- 1/18/10 . 28,659.00 . No IEIRD/SAD 60-D-2"; "P-60- 3,439.00 submitted G" 1

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 Page 11 of22 C15540 'P-62-A'' to ''P� 1/28/10 162,121.00 19,454.00 No IEIRD submitted 62-D-4''; "P-62- 1/18/10 168,602.00 C9020 1124/10 250,575.00 20,232.00 Unreadable SAD G" 2/25/10 139,177.00 C15541 "P-64-A" to "P- No IEIRD/SAD February 64-D-4"; "P-64- 2/22/10 52,724.00 30,069.00 submitted C31204 F" to "P-64-G" 2/25/10 52,240.00 C37183 "P-66-A" to "P- 2/26/10 121,140.00 16,701.00 Unreadable SAD 66-D-4"; "P-66- 65,439.00 6,327.00 No SSDT or proof of C28811 payment submitted C31202 G" 54,518.00 94,451.00 6,268.00 Unreadable SAD C31680 "P-75-A" to "P- 107,846.00 75-D" 104,180.00 14,537.00 Unreadable SAD 95,311.00 "P-77-A" to "P- 266,577.00 No IEIRD/SAD 77-D"; "P-77-F" 184,893.00 7,852.00 submitted "P-81-A" to "P- 279,020.00 81-D-2"; "P-81- 179,038.00 F" to "P-81-G" 303,896.00 "P-82-A" to "P- 181,650.00 82-D-2"; "P-82- 331,601.00 F" to "P-82-G" 182,277.00 "P-83-A" to "P- 261,927.00 83-D-3"; "P-83- I 135.971.00 G" March "P-86-A" to "P- 86-D-2"; "P-86- C37182 F" to "P-86-G" 3/10/10 6,542.00 Unreadable SAD "P-87-A" to "P- 87-D-2"; "P-87- C41185 F" to "P-87-G" 3/17/10 11,334.00 Unreadable SAD "P-88-A" to "P- 88-D-3"; "P-88- C46218 F" to "P-88-G" 3/25/10 19,976.00 Unreadable SAD "P-89-A" to "P- 89-D-3"; "P-89- C49732 F" to "P-89-G" 4/6/10 19,467.00 Unreadable SAD "P-90-A" to "P- 90-D-3"; "P-90- C52915 F" to "P-90-G" 4/7/10 18,202.00 Unreadable SAD "P-91-A" to "P- 91-D-3"; "P-91- C37180 F" to "P-91-G" 4/10/10 31,989.00 Unreadable SAD "P-92-A" to "P- 92-D-4"; "P-92- C39185 F" to "P-92-G" unreadable 23,866.00 Unreadable SAD "P-93-A" to "P- 93-D-3"; "P-93- C41188 F" to "P-93-G" 3/17/10 62,528.00 Unreadable SAD "P-94-A" to "P- 94-D-4"; "P-94- C43040 F" to "P-94-G" 3/22/10 40,002.00 Unreadable SAD "P-95-A" to "P- 95-D-3"; "P-95- C46222 F" to "P-95-G" unreadable 67,402.00 Unreadable SAD "P-96-A" to "P- 96-D-4"; "P-96- C46862 F" to "P-96-G" unreadable 40,342.00 Unreadable SAD "P-97-A" to "P- 97-D-3"; "P-97- C49740 F" to "P-97-G" 4/5/10 74,856.00 Unreadable SAD "P-98-A" to "P- 98-D-4"; "P-98- C50360 F" to "P-98-G" unreadable 20,531.00 Unreadable SAD "P-99-A" to "P- 99-D-3"; "P-99- C52907 F" to "P-99-G" 4/7/10 59,946.00 Unreadable SAD April I I "P-1 00-A" to I 4/15/10 I 23,774.00 Unreadable SAD C58315 "P-100-D-3"; "P- &I

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 Page 12 of22 C63507 100-F'' to "P- 4/23/10 155,889.00 30,030.00 Unreadable SAD C67574 100-G" 163,832.00 C70459 4/30/10 135,501.00 33,489.00 Unreadable SAD C54830 "P-101-A"to 186,407.00 C58305 "P-101-D-3"; "P- unreadable 277,721.00 23,701.00 Unreadable SAD C59614 4/12/10 184,544.00 C63506 101-F" to "P- 276,839.00 40,557.00 Unreadable SAD C63372 101-G" 4/16/10 187,583.00 C67568 277,004.00 61,181.00 Unreadable SAD C67562 "P-1 02-A" to N/A 192,585.00 C70452 "P-102-D-3"; "P- 278,692.00 22,145.00 Unreadable SAD May 4/23/10 102-F" to "P- 188,129.00 61,589.00 Unreadable SAD 102-G" 4/23/10 40,844.00 113,297.00 40,524.00 Unreadable SAD "P-1 03-A" to 4/30/10 117,263.00 "P-103-D-3"; "P- 65,607.00 Unreadable SAD unreadable 256,920.00 103-F" to "P- 156,098.00 44,238.00 Unreadable SAD 103-G" unreadable 262,621.00 61,969.00 Unreadable SAD "P-1 04-A" to 5/24/10 ,. 1,537,361.00 "P-104-D-4"; "P- 6/11/10 8,792,963.00 No IEIRD/SAD 7/1/10 287,792.00 submitted 104-F" to "P- 7/9/10 104-G" 7/1/10 SSDT does not match 7/6/10 4,901.00 IEIRD/SAD "P-1 05-A" to 13,595.00 Out-of-period claim "P-1 05-D-3"; "P- 7/9/10 14,071.00 Out-of-period claim 105-F" to "P- I 30,830.00 Out-of-period claim 105-G" 18,731.00 Out-of-period claim I "P-1 06-A" to "P-1 06-D-4"; "P- 106-F" to "P- 106-G" "P-1 07-A" to "P-107-D-3"; "P- 107-F" to "P- 107-G" "P-1 08-A" to "P-1 08-D-4"; "P- 108-F" to "P- 108-G" "P-109-A" to "P-1 09-D-3"; "P- 109-F" to "P- 109-G" "P-11 0-A" to "P-11 0-D-4"; "P- 11 0-F" to "P- 110-G" "P-111-A" to "P-111-D-2"; "P- 111-F" to "P- 111-G" C80060 "P-118-A" to 35,369.00 Out-of-period claim June "P-118-D-4"; "P- C92759 C103534 118-G" C108285 "P-124-A" to C103531 "P-124-G" C106553 "P-127-A" to "P-127-G" C108275 "P-128-B" to "P-128-G" "P-135-A" to "P-135-E"; "P- 135-G" "P-136-A" to "P-136-G" "P-219-A" to "P-219-D-3"; "P-219-F" to "P- 219-G" July 184,479.00 1 Out-of-period claim " t,720,434.oo 1 I Total ~

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 Page 13 of22 Considering that petitioner's importations were undertaken using the SOC's e2m system, and in view of the Court's pronouncement that machine validated IEIRDs/SADs are no longer required to prove the payment of customs duties and taxes, the following importations of petitioner are found to be duly substantiated with IEIRDs/SADs and SSDTs: CBU Importations -Land Cruiser Import Supporting Supporting ..Customs Duties ..Excess VAT .. Total 7,759,831.00 931,179.72 8,691,010.72 Entry No. IEIRD/SAD SSDT 931,139.26 8,690,633.08 7,759,493.82 .. 1,862,318.98 C983810 "P-7-E" 'P-7-F" .. 17,381,643.80 .. 15,519,324.82 "P-10-E-1" to "P-10- "P-10-F' Customs Duties C2232210 E-2" Supporting .. 157,492.00 Total SSDT 78,269.00 248,229.00 KD Importations "P-61-G" 147,484.00 "P-63-G" 160,212.00 Import Supporting "P-65-G" 60,712.00 Excess VAT Total 174,423.00 Entry No. IEIRO/SAD "P�67�G" 249,277.00 "P�68�G" 146,531.00 January "P-69-G" .. .. "P-70-G" 75,080.00 C11667 "P-61-E" "P-71-G" 138,762.00 18,899.04 176,391.04 "P-72-G" 140,246.00 C9001 "P�63�E" 9,392.28 87,661.28 "P-73-G" 93,831.00 C11666 "P-65-E" "P-74-G" 54,895.00 29,787.48 278,016.48 "P-76-G" 122,367.00 C16189 "P-67-E" "P-78-G" 107,790.00 17,698.08 165,182.08 "P-79-G" 83,448.00 C18709 "P-68-E" to "P-68-F" "P-80-G" 19,225.44 179,437.44 "P-84-G" 152,655.00 C22645 "P-69-E" to P-69-F" "P-85-G" 7,285.44 67,997.44 160,968.00 C21095 "P-70-E" "P-112-G" 20,930.76 195,353.76 162,082.00 C18707 "P-71-E" "P-113-G" 29,913.24 279,190.24 97,647.00 C12271 "P�72�E" "P-114-G" 190,046.00 17,583.72 164,114.72 323,757.00 February "P-115-G" 321,787.00 "P-116-G" C22643 "P-73-E" to "P-73-F" "P-117-G" 194,855.00 9,009.60 84,089.60 "P-119-G" 332,941.00 16,651.44 155,413.44 C27678 "P-74-E" to "P-74-F" 196,722.00 16,829.52 157,075.52 "P-120-G" 11,259.72 105,090.72 C34286 "P-76-E" "P-121-G" 115,435.00 "P-122-G" 6,587.40 61,482.40 C22639 "P-78-E" to "P-78-F" 123,404.00 14,684.04 137,051.04 "P-123-G" 12,934.80 120,724.80 C24182 "P-79-E" to "P-79-F" 113,435.00 10,013.76 "P-125-G" 93,461.76 C27677 "P-80-E" to "P-78-F" 167,245.00 "P-126-G" 172,284.00 C34285 "P-84-E" 260,008.00 "P-129-G" C34958 "P�85�E" "P-130-G" 171,544.00 "P-131-G" May 260,084.00 "P-132-G" C80046 "P-112-F" 152,843.00 18,318.60 170,973.60 "P-133-G" "P-113-E" to "P-113- . 5,908,790.00 "P-134-G" .. 21,428,114.82 C83133 F" 19,316.16 180,284.16 "P-114-E" to "P-114- C87597 F" 19,449.84 181,531.84 "P-115-E" to "P-115- C92758 F" 11,717.64 109,364.64 22,805.52 212,851.52 C76845 "P-116-F" 38,850.84 362,607.84 38,614.44 360,401.44 C80045 "P-117-E" C83125 "P-119-F" "P-120-E" to "P-120- C83931 F" 23,382.60 218,237.60 39,952.92 372,893.92 C87594 "P-121-E" 23,606.64 220,328.64 C88935 "P-122-F" "P-123-E" to "P-123- C92757 F" 13,852.20 129,287 20 June "P-125-E" to "P-125- C96596 F" 14,808.48 138,212 48 "P-126-E" to "P-126- C100274 F" 13,612.20 127,047.20 "P-129-E" to "P-129- C92755 F" 20,069.40 187,314.40 20,674.08 192,958.08 C92507 "P-130-E" to "P-30-F" 31,200.96 291,208.96 C96593 "P-131-F" "P-132-E" to "P-132- C97160 F" 20,585.28 192,129.28 "P-133-E" to "P-133- C100646 F" 31,210.08 291,294.08 "P-134-E" to "P-134- .. C101465 F" 18,341.16 171,184.16 6,617,844.80 Total .. 709,054.80 .. 2,571,373.78 (1] 23,999,488.60 Total Additional Refund

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 In sum, petitioner has proven that it is entitled to an additional refund of P21 ,428,114.82 representing customs duties paid, and t-2,571,373.78 representing excess VAT paid, on CBU importations of Land Cruiser and KD importations of components, parts and/or accessories. Indispensability of the requirement to submit Amended ISS to be entitled to the refund of excise taxes Petitioner likewise prays for reconsideration of the disallowed excise taxes on its CBU importations of Land Cruiser and Lexus in the total amount of P38,824,877.00, broken down as follows: Import Entry Exhibit Ref. No. Date of Payment Excise tax No. perSSDT ~ 140,625.00 CBU Importation - Land Cruiser 1/28/10 1.687,500.00 1/28/10 1 ,265,625.00 C983710 "P-6-A" to "P-6-H" 2/6/10 1,125,000.00 2/17/10 1,687,500.00 C983810 "P-7-A" to "P-7-H" 3/8/10 703,125.00 3/23/10 1,546,875.00 C1348610 "P-8-A" to "P-8-H" 3/23/10 1,968,750.00 4/12/10 1,968,750.00 C753510 "P-9-A" to "P-9-H" 4/22/10 2,812,500.00 4/22/10 4,640,625.00 C2232210 "P-10-A" to "P-10-H" 5/11/10 281,250.00 C2776210 "P-11-A" to "P-11-D"; "P-11- 5/27/10 75,000.00 C2776310 562,500.00 F"to"P-11-H" N/A 2,531,250.00 "P-12-A" to "P-12-D"; "P-12- 5/27/10 281,250.00 6/11/10 F-1" to "P-12-H" 6/22/10 23,278,125.00 C3449210 "P-13-A" to "P-13-H" 1/28/10 252,789.00 C3994210 "P-14-A" to "P-14-D-2"; "P-14- 2/8/10 2,167,700.00 C994410 2/18/10 F" to "P-14-H" 2/18/10 147,488.00 "P-15-A" to "P-15-D-2"; "P-15- 3/8/10 592,967.00 3/24/10 1,070,596.00 F" to "P-15-H" 3/24/10 884,928.00 1,603,090.00 C4658710 "P-16-A" to "P-16-H" ~ C5375210 "P-17-A" to "P-17-H" C5375910 N/A C5375510 "P-18-A" to "P-18-F"; "P-18- G" C5968610 "P-1 9-A" to "P-1 9-H" C6598210 "P-20-A" to "P-20-H" Excise Tax Claimed on CBU Importation - Land Cruiser CBU Importation - Lexus C991910 "P-21-A" to "P-21-F" C1332710 "P-22-A" to "P-22-F" C1781010 "P-23-A" to "P-23-F" C1781110 "P-24-A" to "P-24-F" C224310 "P-25-A" to "P-25-F" C2797410 "P-26-A" to "P-26-F" C2801510 "P-27-A" to "P-27-F"

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 C3404210 "P-28-A" to "P-28-E" N/A 1,055,324.00 C3999310 "P-29-A" to "P-29-F" 4/22/10 310,248.00 C4001410 "P-30-A" to "P-30-F" 4/22/10 2,277,826.00 C4669810 "P-31-A" to "P-31-C-2"; "P- 5/11/10 C5976310 31-E" to "P-31-F" 6/11/10 881,917.00 2,802,891.00 "P-217-A" to "P-217-F" 6/28/10 1,498,988.00 "P-218-A" to "P-218-D"; "P- 15,546,752.00 .. 38,824,877.00 C6600110 218-F" Excise Tax Claimed on CBU Importation - Land Cruiser Total Excise Tax Claimed In the assailed Decision, the Court denied the refund of excise taxes on the ground that the Amended ISS were: (i) not signed by any representative of petitioner; (ii) not duly notarized; and, (iii) not submitted to the BIR, contrary to the provisions of Section 149 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and Section 5 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 25-2003. The Court ratiocinated in this wise: Under Section 149 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, the excise tax on the importation of automobiles is based on the manufacturer's or importer's selling price, net of excise and value- added tax. Section 5 of Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 25-2003, as amended, similarly provides that: SEC. 5. MANUFACTURER'S OR IMPORTER'S SELLING PRICE. The net manufacturer's or importer's selling price shall refer to the price, net of excise and value-added taxes, at which locally manufactured/assembled or imported automobiles are offered for sale by the manufacturer/assembler or importer to the dealers, or to the public directly or through their sales agents, as reflected in the manufacturer's/assembler's or importer's sworn statement duly filed with the BIR, or in their sales invoices/official receipts, whichever is higher[.! xxx (Underscoring supplied) Thus, the computation of excise taxes shall be based on the selling price of the manufacturer or importer as reflected in the manufacturer's/assembler's or importer's sworn statement (ISS). Section 13 of RR No. 25-2003 likewise provides for the procedure on the amendment of the ISS, as follows: SEC. 13. MANUFACTURER'S/ASSEMBLER'S OR IMPORTER'S SWORN STATEMENT. XXX XXX XXX The manufacturer/assembler or importer shall file an C1J amended sworn statement of the selling price of any

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 Page 16 of22 brand/model of automobiles whenever there is a change on the actual selling price thereof. The amended sworn statement shall be filed before the said brand/s or model/s of automobiles may be removed from the place of production or assembly for sale to dealer or the public at the new selling price or before removal thereof from the customs custody. No changes in the selling price of the automobiles shall be allowed unless the corresponding amended sworn statement shall have been submitted to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. (Underscoring supplied) To show that petitioner effected a decrease in the selling price of its CBU importations of Land Cruiser due to the elimination of customs duties, petitioner submitted in evidence an amended ISS as of July 5, 2010 (Exhibit "P-227"). Review of the submitted evidence shows, however, that the amended ISS as of July 5, 2010 was not signed by the representative of petitioner, nor was it sworn to before a notary public, nor was there any indication that it was filed or submitted to the BIR, as required by the NIRC of 1997, as amended, and RR No. 25-2003. Thus, the amended ISS as of July 5, 2010 shall not be given consideration by the Court. Since there is no basis for the computation of excess excise tax paid resulting from the submission of the invalid amended ISS, petitioner failed to justify its claim for refund of such tax." Petitioner contends that the Amended ISS which were not signed and notarized should not materially affect its refund claim. Petitioner argues that the Court should have referred to the original ISS, which are all signed and notarized, that reflects the incorrect tax base for excise tax paid by petitioner. Petitioner's contention is unmeritorious. It must be noted that it was petitioner who relied on the Amended ISS as basis for its claim of excess excise tax. To recall, Annex "D" of the Petition for Review12 provides for petitioner's computation of its requested refund of excess excise taxes in the total amount of P38,824,877.00. The said amount is the total of the difference between the excise tax based on the selling price of the imported motor vehicles as contained in both the Original ISS and the Amended ISS, as follows: 12 CTA Docket, Vol. I, p. 94.0\

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 CBU Importations - Land Cruiser Import Model Unit/s Excise Tax (based on price Excise Tax (based on Difference Entry No. stated In the Origlnall$$) 13 price stated in the Amended 1$$)14 C983710 LC200 1 " 967,545.00 " 826,920.00 " 140,625.00 C983810 LC200 12 11,610,540.00 9,923,040.00 1,687,500.00 C1348610 LC200 9 8,707,905.00 7,442,280.00 1,265,625.00 C1753510 LC200 8 7,740,360.0 6,615,360.00 1'125,000.00 C2232210 LC200 12 11,610,540.00 9,923,040.00 1,687,500.00 C2776210 LC200 5 4,837,725.00 4,134,600.00 703,125.00 C2776310 LC200 11 10,642,995.00 9,096,120.00 1,546,875.00 C3449210 LC200 14 13,545,630.00 11,576,880.00 1,968,750.00 C3994210 LC200 14 13,545,630.00 11,576,880.00 1,968,750.00 C3994410 LC200 20 19,350,900.00 16,538,400.00 2,812,500.00 C4658710 LC200 33 31,928,985.00 27,288,360.00 4,640,625.00 C5375210 LC200 2 1,935,090.00 1,653,840.00 281,250.00 C5375910 LC200 1 901,920.00 826,920.00 75,000.00 C5375510 LC200 4 3,870,180.00 3,307,680.00 562,500.00 C596810 LC200 18 17,415,810.00 14,884,560.00 2,531,250.00 C596810 LC200 2 1,935,090.00 1,653,840.00 281,250.00 Total " 160,546,845.00 137,268,720.00 " 23,278,125.00 CBU Importations - Lexus Import Model Unit/s Excise Tax (based on Excise Tax (based on Difference Entry No. OriginaiiSS)15 Amended IS$)16 1 GGL15l� 1 4 C991910 AWTGKW 4 " 800,636.00 " 653,147.00 " 147,489.00 USF41L- 6 1 AEZGKW(L4) 3 2,015,033.00 1,909,732.00 105,301.00 1 GGL15l- 2 5 AwrGKW 6 3,202,544.00 2,612,588.00 589,956.00 4 GSV40l- 3 2 C1332710 BETGKV 2 2,611,920.00 1,991,428.00 620,492.00 4 URJ201l- 3 GNTGKV 10,246,002.00 9,288,750.00 957,252.00 GGL 1 5 l - C1781010 AWTGKW 800,636.00 653,147.00 147,489.00 URJ201l- GNTGKV 5,123,001.00 4,644,375.00 478,626.00 C1781110 USF41l- AEZGKW(L5) 1,722.734.00 1,608,393.00 114,341.00 GGL 15L- C224310 AwrGKW 1,601,272.00 1,306,294.00 294,978.00 GSV40L- BETGKV 3,264,900.00 2,489,285.00 775,615.00 GGL 15L- C2797410 AWTGKW 4,803,816.00 3,918,882.00 884,934.00 GGL 15L� AWTGKW 3,202,544.00 2,612,588.00 589,956.00 GSV40L- BETGKV 1,958,940.00 1,493,571.00 465,369.00 C2801510 URJ201l- GNTGKV 3,415,334.00 3,096,250.00 319,084.00 USF41L- AEZGKW(L5) 3,445,468.00 3,216,786.00 228,682.00 GGL 15L- AwrGKW 3,202,544.00 2,612,588.00 589,956.00 C3404210 GSV40L- BETGKV 1,958,940.00 1,493,571.00 465,369.00 13 Exhibit P-220. 14 Exhibit P-227. 1s Exhibits P-221 to P-226. 16 Exhibits P-228 to P-2330')

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 GSV40L- C3999310 BETGKV 2 1,305,960.00 995,714.00 310,246.00 5,604,452.00 4,572,029.00 GGL 15L- 4,570,860.00 3,484,999.00 1,707,667.00 1,548,125.00 AWTGKW 7 6,830,668.00 6,192,500.00 1,032,423.00 1,138,136.00 1,002,701.00 GSV40L- 2,018,046.00 1,909,732.00 2,401,908.00 1,959,441.00 C4001410 BETGKV 7 3,917,880.00 2,987,142.00 1,085,861.00 1'138,136.00 1,002,701.00 URJ201L- 10,246,002.00 9,288,750.00 2,018,046.00 1,909,732.00 GNTGKV 1 3,445,468.00 3,216,786.00 159,542.00 6,405,088.00 5,225,176.00 URJ201L- 3,415,334.00 3,096,250.00 ~ 93,993,153.00 GNTGKV 4 ~ 231,261,873.00 638,168.00 URS190l- C4669810 BEZQKV 1 135,435.00 USF41L- AEZGKW(L4) 1 108,314.00 GGL15L- AWTGKW 3 442,467.00 GSV40L- BETGKV 6 930,738.00 URS190l- BEZQKV 1 135,435.00 C5976310 URJ201l- GNTGKV 6 957,252.00 USF41L- AEZGKW(L4) 1 108,314.00 USF41L- AEZGKW(L5) 2 228,682.00 GGL15L- AWTGKW 8 1,179,912.00 C6600110 URJ201L- GNTGKV 2 319,084.00 Total, CBU Importations -Lexus ~ 109,539,915.00 ~ 15,546,762.00 Total, CBU Importations of Land Cruiser and Lexus ~ 270,086,760.00 ~ 38,824,887.00 Total Excise Tax Being Claimed as Refund In the Petition for Review ~ 38,824,877.00 The above computation was likewise validated by the Independent Certified Public Accountant (ICPA), as found in the ICPA ReportY Verily, it was petitioner who made use of the Amended ISS to compute the excess excise tax it allegedly paid. It cannot now disclaim that the Amended ISS is unnecessary to support the computation of excess excise tax paid because such Amended ISS was utilized by petitioner in its pleadings and proved during trial. As the object of pleadings is to draw the lines of battle, so to speak, between the litigants, and to indicate fairly the nature of the claims or defenses of both parties, a party cannot subsequently take a position contrary to, or inconsistent, with its pleadings. 18 Petitioner cannot take a different posture anent the manner in which the excess excise tax was computed as shown in Annex D, which is an integral part of its Petition, after the supporting Amended ISS, which was used by petitioner in preparing aforesaid Annex, was found defective by the Court. 17 Exhibit P-239, ICPA Report Annex Nos. "LC-2-2", "LX-2-2", "LC-3-2" and "LX-3- 2", CTA Docket, Vol. Ill, pp. 1267-1294. 18 Maxicare PCIB Cigna Healthcare vs. Contreras, G.R. No. 194352, January 30, 2013<1

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 Page 19 of22 To reiterate, under Section 149 of the NIRC of 1997, as amended, excise tax on motor vehicles is based on importer's selling price, net of excise tax and VAT. This selling price contains the cost of the imported motor vehicles, of which customs duties is included. Such selling price is based on the ISS filed by the importer as required under Sections 5 and 13 of RR No. 25-2003. Since petitioner was exempted from the payment of customs duties under JPEPA and EO No. 905, the selling price of the imported motor vehicles was supposedly adjusted to reflect a reduction in cost due to the elimination of customs duties. To reflect the change in the selling price, it was thus incumbent for petitioner to submit an Amended ISS showing the new and adjusted selling price. It is only through the Amended ISS that there can be a determination of the excess excise tax paid because, as already stated, excise tax is based on selling price, and the Amended ISS reflects the new price set by petitioner taking into account the elimination of customs duties as a component of the cost of the imported motor vehicles. In the assailed Decision, the Court found that all the Amended ISS offered by petitioner in evidence do not comply with the requisites laid down in Sections 5 and 13 of RR No. 25-2003, to wit: 1) The Amended ISS was not signed by the authorized representative of petitioner; 2) It was not sworn to before a notary public; and, 3) There was no indication that it was filed with and received by the BIR. Upon further evaluation and careful scrutiny of all the Amended ISS, however, the Court finds that two (2) Amended ISS, i.e., Amended ISS for model code "URS190L-BEZQKV"19 and Amended ISS for model code "USF41 L-AEZGKW(L5)", 20 are compliant with the foregoing requirements set forth in Sections 5 and 13 of RR No. 25- 2003. Except for the two (2) valid Amended ISS for the CBU importations of Lexus, all circumstances militate against giving the remaining Amended ISS any evidentiary weight. Thus, the figures contained therein are unreliable and cannot be given due consideration by the Court. Without the Amended ISS, the Court cannot ascertain 19 Exhibit P-231. 2o Exhibit P-2330'1.

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 Page 20of22 any excess excise tax paid because there can be no comparison of the original and adjusted selling price, which is the basis of excise tax. It is further noted that while the Amended ISS for model code "USF41 L-AEZGKW(L5)" 21 has complied with the requites anent the requirements to have it signed by any representative of petitioner, notarized and submitted to the BIR, the necessary details are unreadable which prevented the Court from ascertaining the amount of alleged reduced excise tax to which the original excise tax shall be compared to determine the refundable amount. For this reason, the claimed excess excise taxes thereon shall not be granted. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds basis to grant the refund of excess excise tax pertaining to CBU Importations - Lexus in the amount of P270,870.00, detailed as follows: CBU Importations- Lexus Import Model Unit/s Excise Tax (based on Excise Tax (based Difference Entry No. Original ISS)" on Amended 155)23 135,435.00 URS190L- ,. 1,002,701.00 C4669810 BEZQKV 1 1,138,136.00 URS190L- C5976310 BEZQKV 1 1,138,136.00 ,. 1,002,701.00 135,435.00 270,870.00 Total Refundable Excess Excise Tax In sum, the Court finds that petitioner is entitled to additional refund in the total amount of P24,270,358.60, broken down as follows: Excess CBU Importations- CBU KD Importations Total Payment Made Land Cruiser Importations - ,. 5,908.790.00 ,. 21 ,428,114.82 Customs Duties ,. 15,519.324.82 Lex us Excise Taxes - - VAT Total ,. 1,862,318.98 270,870.00 - 270,870.00 17,381,643.80 - ,. 709,054.80 ,. 2,571,373.78 6,617,844.80 24,270,358.60 P'270,870.00 Adding the same amount of P24,270,358.60 to the amount of P119,858, 119.77 previously granted in the assailed Decision, petitioner has substantiated its claim for refund of customs duties and 21 Exhibit P-233. 22 Exhibits P-221 to P-226. 23 Exhibits P-228 to P-233~

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 Page 21 of22 excess VAT on CBU Importations and KD Importations in the total amount of P144, 128,478.37, detailed as follows: Excess CBU Importations- CBU Importations KD Importations Total Land Cruiser - Lexus Payment Made I' 128,444,293.19 270,870.00 Customs Duties I' 67.751,852.00 I' 54,783,651.19 I' 5,908,790.00 Excise Taxes 15,413,315.18 - 270,870.00 - I' 144,128,478.37 VAT 8,130,222.24 6,574,038.14 709,054.80 Total I' 75,882,074.24 I' 61,628,559.33 I' 6,617,844.80 WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 2 July 2020) filed on August 19, 2020 is DENIED for lack of merit. Petitioner's Motion for Partial Reconsideration (of the Decision dated 2 July 2020) filed on July 22, 2020 is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, respondent Commissioner of Customs is hereby ORDERED to refund or issue a tax credit certificate in favor of petitioner Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation the amount of P144,128,478.37, representing excess customs duties, excess excise taxes and value-added tax paid on its importations from Japan of Complete Built Up motor vehicles with a cylinder capacity above three thousand cubic centimeters (3,000 cc) and Knocked-Down components, parts, and/or accessories for the assembly of motor vehicles for the period January 1 to June 30, 2010. SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice /CONCUR: ~~� ,7: //L~.~--- CATHERINE'T. MANAHAN Associate Justice

Amended Decision Toyota Motor Philippines Corporation vs. Commissioner of Customs CTA Case No. 9250 Page 22of22 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Artie le VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Amended Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. Presiding Justice