CTA Case No. 1454 (Decision)

REPUBLIC OP IAE PHILIPPINSS COURT QF QURZON CITY TAX APPEALS

DE FILIPINAS, COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS Petitionor,

-vorsus- C.1.A. CASE Ho.1+5

ACTING CONMISSIONER OP CUSTOMS, Respondent.

DSCISION

This is an appeal from two dacisions of the Ast- ing Commissioner of Customs,dated August 15,1963, im

Customs Casas Non. 570 and 576, affirming tho deeision

ia Cagsyan Protesta Nos. 181 and 187, respeotively, of the Collector of Customs for the Port of Cagayan de Oro City,dated July 19,196l,pp.2-3; 9-10,Customs

Record) denying tho protests or the.petitioner on tho collection of the total amount of 379.25, as berthing fees, under Section 2903 of Republic Aet No. 1937, bet-

ter known an the Tariff and Custons Coda.

The parties submittad their case for deoision on

the following ustipulation of Facts (pp. i6-l7, CT

reo. to vit,

Marqaes de Comillas Ermita Mauila ro- pondent in tha ineumbeat Aeting Commis- sioner of Customs. Philippines with prineipal ofrice at 848 ganized and existing under the iaws of the "l, Petitioner is m corporation or-

sels 'Rita Maersk and fiie Maersk' of 2. Sometime in June, 196l, the vom-

I 3 3

CTA CASE MO. 1+5+ DECISION -

R

and is owned and operated cxeluaively ty the rort of Cagayan de Oro for the purpose of loading cargo to bo transported by them which petitioner is the ship agent in tbo Philippines docked at the Dugo pier at abroad.The Hugo pior has no cnrgo sheds the Philippine Packing Corporation.

Port of Cagayan de Oro levied and assessed on naid voasels the aun of #379.25 as berth and Customa Code Repubiic Aet 1937), which ing fees under aectiou 2903 of the Tariff fees were paid by petitioner as foilowst "3. The Collector of Customs of the

Yossel Borthing Toe Baceint Non Qffisial Data ta Maersk189.31 Kffie Maorsk p189.9+ C-246394+ c-3463947 6/30/61 7/30/61

ss Cagayan Protests Nos.181 ana i37 wharf, or make fast to any vessel so rospeotively. loetor or Customs of Cagayan de Oro pro- tests against tho imposition and ooliec- tion of berthing fco on tho allegation that publis or government-owned pier, wharf, Corpora tlon, which protests were docketed these veasels did not roor or berth at any buikhead-wharf, river or channei marginal sic) pier owned by the Phiiippine Packing berthed or moored, but berthed at the Buto o Fetitioner filed vith tho Col-

gayan de Oro rendered separate decisions denying petitioner's protests which de- in the time prescribed by iaw and these appeals were docketed by respondent as Customs Casas Nos, 570 and 576, respective- cisions wore appeaied by petitioner with- Iy. 5.The Collector of Customs of Ca

ceived hy petitioner on September ,i963. 570 and 576, respeotively, affirming the Cagayan do Oro, copies of which were re- rendered his deoision in Cus toma Cases Nos. decisions of tho Colleetor of Customs of 6.On August 15,1963,Topondent

3 4

DECISION - CTA CASE N0. 145+

:

The only issue raised for our consideration is

vhether or not the colleetion of berthing fees by the

respondent from tho petitioner in the total sum of

P379.2y is legal, considering that tho two foreign ves- sels, "Rita Laersku and "gffie Maersk of which the pe- titioner is the ship agent in the Philippines, docked

at the Bugo pier af the Port of Cagayan de Oro for tho

purpose of loading cargo, which pier is owned and oper-

atod Cxeluaively by the Philippine Packing Corporation

This question is no longer of first impression as far as this Court is coneerned. In Luzon stavedoriag

Corporation vs. The Commissioner of Cuatoms, C.T.A. Case

No.1146,dated Febraary 1, 1963,now on appeal in the Supreme Court, G.R. No. 2l005, whioh is analogous to the

present oaso, this Court has held that.

or berthing tak s place in privately owned lection of the berthing foes in question is pradicated mainly on the theory that the right to colleet the same extenda only to vessels mooring or berthing in government for berthing fees attaches. piers. oiers, "Petitioner's protest against tho col- it is urged upon us that no liability Where, as in this case, thg mooring

Code defines berthing charge thus: "section 290l of the Tariff and Customa

ing or berthing at a pier, wharf, making fast'to a Vessel so berthedy asnessed against a Vessel for moor- marginsl wharf at any port in the buikhead-wharf, river or channei Philippines, or for mooring and Berthing charge is the nmount

35

DECISION - CTA CASE NO.1+54

under the Jurisdiction of any port or for coming or nooring withia any agent, operator or master of the sol ii liable for this charge. slip, of the Fhiiippines. The ownar, channei, basiu, river or oanal voa-

wharf x x x a any port in the Philip- ovned and privately owned.vessols in author- vossel for mooring or berthing at a pier, makes no distinction batween govarnment- iaing the collection of the berthing charge bility for barthing charge attaches to Dines X is not conditioned.upon the nature of owner- ship over the pier or wharf.- The-fact that vately owmed pier or wharf does not exempt it is elear that, in this jurisdiction, lia- or foo. tinguare debemus. the mooring or berthing takes -piace in a pri- the vessel from such liability, for the iaw "From the aforo-quoted codal definition, Ubi iex non distinguit, nac nos dis- K x. The liability, therefore

The facts of the present esse aro no aifferent from

the facts in the above-quoted oase to warrant a doparture

from our original decision.

WlieREFoRe, the potition for review is hereby dis-

missed, with costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Philippines, January 28, 1965.

Aotihg Presiding Juige LULIANU

I CONCUR

Associato RONAN M. UMALI W Judge

3 6