CTA Case No. 4702 (Decision)

- ----- ~ --- REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY TAGANITO MINING CORPORATION, Petitionel"~, COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL C.T.A. CASE No. 4702 REVENUE, F~espondent. _y#:; PROMULGATED: x------ _A~R-2_8 ~~ DEC s 0N This case presents to us a claim for refund of excise taxes l)n minel"~aJ. pl"~oclucts allegedly ovel"~paid by Taganito Mining Corporation. Taganito Mining is a domestic corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. Petitionel"~ col"~pot��c.~tion has been expl"~essly gt~anted a permit by the govet~nment via an opet~ating contt~act to explore, develop and utilize minet~aJ. deposits found in a in Stn��igao del Not~te and owned by the govet~nment. In exchange fot~ the pl"~i vi J. ege given, Taganito Mining Cm~porat ion is obl i gecl to pay t~oyal t y to the govet~nment over and above other taxes. 722

DECISION C.T.A. CASE No. 4702 - 2- Dtn~ in g t h e pet~ i o d co v e t~ i n g t h e mon t h s o f J' u 1 y t o December, 1989, petitioner removed, shipped and sold substantial quantities of Beneficiated Nickel Silicate ore and ctn~omite ot~e and as a consequence paid excise taxes in the amount of six million two hundt~ed seventy seven thousand nine hundred ninety three and 65/100 pesos <P6,;:::T7,993.65) in compliance with section 151 (3) of the Tax Code. The 5'1- excise tax was based on the amount and weight shown in the provisional invoice issued by Taganito Mining Cot~pot~ation. These metallic minet~als are then shipped to Japanese buyers where these minet~als at��e analyzed allegedly by independent sut~veyot~s upon unloading at its pot��t of destination. The pt~ocedm~e seems simple enough, except fot~ the fact that analysis abroad would oftentimes reveal a different value for the metallic minerals from that indicated in the temporary or provisional invoice submitted by se 11 et~ Tagan ito Mining Cot~poration. Thet~e i s almost always a vat~iance in "mat~~<et values" between that shown in the pt~ov is i onal invoice and that indicated in the final calculation sheet pt~esented by the buyet~s. A compat~ison betlo'Jeen the values found in the two invoices is illustrated hereunder. 723

DECISION C.T.A. CASE No. 4702 - 3- A. FIRST SHIPMENT JULY 30,1989 PROVISIONAL INVOICE FINAL INVOICE Quantity - 18,073,300 DMT Nickel content = 2.41- Quantity - 17,898,873 DMT = 18,073,300 X 2.4 Nickel content = 2.531- = 17,898,873 X 2.531- == 433,759 Kg. :::: L~L~ 7, 781 J.f.,g. Unit Price = USS 3.42/Kg. Unit Price = USS 3.4 Kg. Tot a 1 Pt~ i c e Total Pt~ice = USS 1,483,455.78 =US$ 1,559,173.44 B. SECOND SHIPMENT- OCTOBER 6,1989 PROVISIONAL INVOICE FINAL INVOICE Quantity- 18,163,600 DMT Quantity - 18,183,866 DMT Nickel content - 2.45 Nickel content - 2.48 = 18,163,600 X 2.45 :::: 18,183,866 X 2.48 ::: L~51,869 Kg. ::: L~45, 006 Kg. Unit ~~ice= USS 2.96/Kg. Total Pt~ice Unit Price == USS 3.44/Kg. Total Price = USS 1,337,532.24 = USS 1,533,052.56 C. THIRD SHIPMENT NOVEMBER 20,1989 PROVISIONAL INVOICE FINAL INVOICE Quantity - 15,494,500 DMT Quantity - 14,638.977 DMT Nickel content - 2.45 Nickel content - 2.46 :::: 15,494,500 X 2.45 = 14,638.977 X 2.46 = 360, 119 Kg s. = 379,615 l.t..g. Unit Price = USS 2.94/Kg. Unit Price = USS 2.94/ kg. Total Pt~ice Total Pt~ict~ == uss 1,061,450.75 == us$ 1' 117, 017. 14 D. FOURTH SHIPMENT- DECEMBER 27,1989 PROVISIONAL INVOICE FINAL INVOICE Quantity - 18,200,000 DMT Quantity - 17,971.870 DMT Nickel content - 2.45 Kg. Nickel content - 2.49 Kg. :::: 18,200,000 X 2.45 :::: 17,921,870 X 2.45 == 4L~5,900 J.t..gs Unit Price == USS 2.94/Kg. = LtL~1, 209 Kgs. Total Pt~ice Unit Price= USS 2.48/Kg. = US$ 1,312,060.75 Total Pt~ice = USS 1,096,095.52 724

DECISION C.T.A. CASE No. 4702 - 4- E. FIFTH SHIPMENT < Chromite> NOVEMBER 21,1989 PROVISIONAL INVOICE FINm. INVOICE Quantity - 3,800 DMT Quantity - 4,380.317 DMT Ore content - 38% Ore content - 38% Unit Price = US$ 70.00/Kg. Unit Price = US$ 70.00/kg. Total p~~ice Total Price :::US$ 266,000.00 = US$ 305, 6i=:2. 19 .The differences as shown reveal that variances occur in the weight of the shipment or the price of the metallic mine~~als pe~�� ~dlog~~am and sometimes in theit~ metallic content ~~esulting in disct��epancies in the total selling pt~ice. Be that as it may, it is always the p~~ice indicated in the final invoice that is detet~minative of the amount that the buyet~s ~~ill eventually pay Taganito Mining Corporation. Petitioner on its part has no quarr~l with the p~~ice that they will t~eceive ft~om the clients for the metallic minet~aJ.s sold, i t howevet~ claims that thet~e has been ovet~payment of excise taxes alt~eady paid to the government d~claring that the 5% excise taxes were based on the amount indicated in the pt~ovisional invoice and final computation show that if it based its excise taxes on the amount shown in the final invoice, which they asset~t is the actual mat~l<et value, they would have been required to pay a lesser amount, computed as follo\I'Js: 725

DECISION C.T.A. CASE No. 4702 - 5- SHIPMENT COMMODITY FINAL VALUE CORRECT EXCISE TAX NO. (in pesos > (5,C.) 1 Nicl-<el P3'~, 078, 880. 07 P1,703,944.00 ,�:_:o Nicl-<t! 1 p;;::g, 187,720. 0~~ P1, Lt5r::3, :386.00 ...., Nicl-<el P23,668, 157.51 1=�1, 183, '+07. 88 ~~ Nicl-<el 1=�2L~, 537, 3LtO. 7 3 ~=�1' ;:::26, 867. 04 1 Cht~om i t e p 6,835,1'38.3'3 ... 341,759.91 Total P118,307,296.73 P5, 915,:364.83 P6, 2T7, 9'33. 65 Less: Excise Tax Paid p 362,628.82 Overpaid Excise Tax Petitioner opted to pay the excise taxes on a quarterly basis and made payments on the following dates: DATE PAID AMOUNT .July 20,1989 !=� 250, 000. 00 September 21,1989 Oct obet~ 20, 1989 P 1 ~:::o, ooo. oo November 6, 1989 Novembet~ 7, 1989 1='1' 376, 206. 40 December 18, 198'3 ... 120, 000. 00 Janu.::n~y 19,1990 p 50,000.00 Total P 1;:::o, ooo. oo Plt, 2Lt l., 787. 25 P6, -c~77, 9'33. 65 (s~e Exh.ibits ".l"~ "J-{:}"~ ".l�-1"~ ".l-C:"~ ".l-3", ".l-3a 11 , II .l--4 , ' I I II -�~+c.l II' II -5~~ ~ II I ���5a II~ II I -6 ") Petitionet~ would like to impt~ess upon us that i t is entitled to claim fot~ a t~efund of excise taxes in the amount of P362,628.82 because the actual market value that should be made the basis of these taxes is that amount specified by the independent surveyor abroad after analysis of the products and indicated in the final calculation sheet. To th i ,, asset~tion, petitioner mentioned the fact that even the government in t~eceiving the due it the mining 726

DECISION C.T.A. CASE No. 4702 - 6- COY'pot~ation based the 5Y. fot' nic~<el and BY. fot' cht'omite fees in the amount indicatf~d in the final invoice, which is the t'ate detet~mined aftet' its analysis Respondent in het~ ans\'H~t~ pt~esented as special and affirmative defenses the following: E... claim fot~ is pending administrative investigation; 7. The tax in question was collected in accordance with lc::o.w; 8. In an action fot' t'efund, the but'den of pt~oof is upon the taxpayer to establish its right to refund. Failure to sustain the burden is fatal to the action; 9. Mere allegations regarding refundability do not ipso facto merit the refund claimed; 10. Claims fot~ of taxes at'e constt~�..ted s t t~ i ct l. y against c 1 a i me:m t , the same be in g in the nat t.n' e of an exemption. Respondent in her memorandum raised the issue of prescription claiming that the petitioner's right to claim fot' a t'efund is ah~eady bat't'ed having been filed beyond the 2 yeat~ pt'esct~iptive pet'iod. She based this argument on her theory that the prescriptive period of 2 727

DECISION C.T.A. CASE No. 4702 - 7- years should be counted ft~om the time specified by the law for payment and not on the date of actual payment. In the case of excise t<:~xes on minet��al pt~oducts, the law t~equit~es that these should be paid upon t~emoval of the minerals. Section 151 (c) of the Tax Code provides: "<C> Time, marmet�� and place of payment of excise Tax tn�� minet~al and minet��al pt~oducts unless othet~wise pt~ovided, the excise tax on minet~als ot~ minet~al pt~oducts s h a l l be due and payable upon removal of the minerals or mineral products or quarry resources from the locality whet~e mined or upon t~emoval ft~om customs custody in the case of impot~tations." Records show that petitioner did not pay the excise taxes upon removal but availed of the quarterly scheme of payment, the last payment of which was made on ~Tanuat~y 1'3, 1990. Petitionet~ howe vet~ maintains in its memorandum, that pt~escl�"'iption not having been t~aised by respondent in her answer can no longer raise it in issue. Respondent also attacked petitioner's failure to post a bond when it subsct��ibed to quat~tet~ly payments of the said excise taxes citing as his basis, Section 151(c) of the Tax Code which provides in part: Any person liable to pay the excise tax on l o c a l l y pt~oduced ot~ extt~acted minet~al, minet~al pt~oducts ot"' quat~t~y t~esout"'ces s h a l l , befot~e removal of such pt~oducts file, in duplicate, a return setting forth the quantity and the actual mat~~<et value of the minet"'al or minet��al products to be removed and pay the excise taxes 728

DECISION C.T.A. CASE No. 4702 - 8- dtH? thet~E!on to the co 1 J. ect ion agent, <H~ the tl�~ e a!:. a_u-~ e Y' o f t h e c i t y o t~ mu n i c i p a J. i t y o f t he place where the mine is located except therein below provided. as However the output of the mine may be removed from such locality without the pt��ep<:71yment of such f~xcis��! taxes if the lessee ownet��, tn~ opet~atcn~ of the mining claim shall f i 1 <�? a bond i n t h e f o y~ m and am o u n t and w i t h such sa_n��et ies as t h e Com m i s ~; i DTHn~ may t~equi t~e, conditioned upon the payment of such excise taxes. It is the contention of the t~espondent that failw~e to post a bond is enou[.;th y��eason to deny petitionet~'s claim for a refund. At~guments pt��es~ntf.~tl to us by both pat..�ties show the:\t this is not just a simple case of refund where the only issue to be t~esolved is l<'lhethet~ OY' not the taxpayet�� is entitled to a t��e fund, more than this, it question of intet~pretation of the pt~o\d~;ion of the Ta>< Code, pm��ticulat��ly Section 151(3) as applied to minet~al products extt~acted in the PhilippitH~s but ~;old atn~oad. What then should be the basis of the excise taxes? What is the meaning of the actual market value as mentioned in th~? Tax Code? This case also 1���aises the issue of pt~esct~iption l<'lhethet�� the t~'lo-�yeat�� pt~esct~iptive pet~iod fat~ claiming a refund should be reckoned from the actual date of payment of the t<:\X OY' ft~om the due dc:'lte of payment pt~ovided by the law. 729

DECISION C.T.A. CASE No. 4702 - 9- l>-lf: r.;h;,Jll fi1���st t<::>.cl:l!~ thE' is!>l..lf? of p1����f?Sc1����iption. PPtit::i.otler��� in its; "r"'!?ply mr~rnot-�<,\nclum contettdr::- that 1��' e s p o n d e n t c <:\ n n o 1 on q f) r�' Y' a i s. r~ t h !-? :i. ~; s u !') o f p r��� �~ s; c r�' i p t: i o n because nowhere i n h e ,., <':\ n ~=� ~'' f:~ r�� o r�' cl u t~ i n g t h 1:~ pl�-�ocf?f.!cl:i.nq die:! <;hp <:\'./er� t:l�l;:,it clr,~fens.e, besid!:!~~ i t is. the o p :i n i o n o f t h r~ p e t :i. t i o n �~ Y' t: h E\ t: t.: h e c 1 .,-,, i m f o t' r�' e f u n d ~"a s filed on timf?. �rhis C::ou1���t f'inds- thi::\l: the petition for�' r��ev:i.f!~'-J 1r1as filed 1>1ithin the pe!�'iPc.l py��o>..-'idr~d by lt:\~'1 .. P e t i t i o n E~ r�' p a i d t h f? e >{ c i s ~~ t: '"' >< e s o 11 a q u ,;;n�' t f) r�' l y b i:\ 5 i s , t h e 1 a ~; t an cl f i n a 1 payment beitl~l on .Tanu.�:\t"'Y 19, :l.~:l90. The claim for refund 1-'-la s f i 1 e d on ~) e pte 111 t:H'! t' 1 1 , inst<:~.llments. or' only :in p<Jl"'t, the pe1���:i!)d is count:�>d ft'om the datf~ of th�~ li:\st or�� fini"\l pc:�.yment until the ~'Jhole 01�' entir-'f? ta>{ l:i.c:ibil:i.ty 1s fully pi:1icl (Comm. v s. Pt' if~ t cl, .-, ,;::. EJCr<n 1007; Comm. V ,. Pal<:\nca, It i ~; but "'" l o q i c i':l 1 t o i n f e r��� t h ;::1 t t h e p P (�� :i. o cl ~; h o '-1 1 c:l b !�? c o u n t e d f t' o m full payment becau,;r~ :i.t J5 only then that on r~ can determine :i.f there was overpayment. WP do not <::\~F~ee v~ith the contention of r���~~spondent that the two-year period should be reckoned from the due date ()f payment and not on the 2\ctual d;:\te of payment. 730

DECISION C.T.A. CASE No. 4702 - 10 - Sect:i.on 230 of thf! T<::t>< Code clc�~�":\l''lY pl'ovic:les that the t~�1o I,,:.:-.�,) ypa�r'' P'r"'E~r:;ct��ipt:ivc? pE:l�:i.od f'o1��. �l�.:he l"�t:'covet�'y of thP '1::;::\>< t h 1�:! "cl ;;:�. t e of p<::\ y me 11 t of the t ;,ct l< n r"� p f:' n a 1 t y r' f? q i:il r��c:fl e s s of an y s up e r' v en i n g c i::i u r::. e t 1�1 E:1 t may a1��ise after' payment", thus: SEC. 230. Recovr:n�~y of' tax et~t~oneousl y ot~ illegally collected. 1���.in s.uit or' pr'oceec:ling shall bP m.::~:i.ntaiTlE~cl :i.n any cou1���t fo1�' thr~ r�'ecov~?r'Y of any national intet'nal r'evenue ta>< h t? 1�"� e .:1ft f~ r' a 1 1 e ~1 e cl t o h a v e be ~? n e r"� r�� on e CJ us l y o l'-. illegally assessed or collected, or of any penc.'\lty cl.:dmec:l to hD.Vf~ been collected ~\lithou.t ,::~ u t h o Y' i t y o t' o f c:\T'l y s u m a 1. 1. e ~1 e c:l t o t1 c:w E~ b 1:1 e n excessive or in any manner wrongfully coll~!cted, until "''' c�l.:,,im for�� r�'efuncl OY' cl�'etlit h a s b e e n d u l y f :i. 1 e cl ~..~ i t h t h f~ Co rn m i s s i Cl n e r�� ; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whethel�" 01��� not such ta><, pen,:-:llty, oY' �'.um has been paid under protest or duress. In any c,::~sP, no <:',uch suit or' pr�oce�~ding s h c.'\ 1 1 be be q u 11 a f t e r' t h e f:.' >< pi 1��� ,:;d; i t1 n o f t ~" o y e a 1��� s h ' o m t h e d a t e o f pay rn en t o f t h e t a>< o l"' penalty reqarclless of any supervening cause that may arise after payment: Provided, however, That the Commissionet�� may, even without a written claim therefor, refund or credit any tax, where on the face of the return upon ~�Jhich p,::~ymf~nt \."las mc:uJe, such paymE~nt appears clearly to have been erroneously paid. cannot en t e r�� t "'' i n petitioner�� 7 c.; plE~c:\ p�r��escr�':iption can no longe�r' be t��ai~~ed fen- the fir�st time i f :i.t !~'las not made an i~;r,;ut::o :i.n th�~ an~;\'Jer' of 1��esponc:l�~nt not this Court has jurisdiction to consider this petition 731

DECISION C.T.A. CASE No. 4702 - 11 - and i t is"'' !��Jell��-settlr~cl r��.1le ttlc\t the question of lcl.ck of jurisdiction can be raised anytime even on appeal. n ~"� t o t h E~ mat t f~ r� D f act u "'' 1 ma t"�l< P t v a 1 u ~~ a s b a s i s f o r' the ~51. �~><cise ta>-:es, ~�H? citf! the SJ:'H~cific t=wnvision of Section 151(3) of the Tax Code: Cl n ,;d 1 me t a 1 l i c mi n e r�� a l s , a t ax o f f i v e p~:r��c~:nt (5;<.) bas;ecl on the ,:.:~ct:u,;,,l m;:n��l<r!t valu�~ o f t h e q 1��� o s s o u t put t h e r"� r~ o f at t h e t i me o f r��~:movi''ll, in th<~ Ci::'\SE�' of thor.~e l o c a l l y extr-acted or produced: or the value used by the Bureau of C u s t o ms i n cl e t e r�� m i n i 11 ~J t a r�� i f f an cl c u s t o ms d u t :i. !�? s , n e t o f �~ :.-: c i s:. r: t "'' >< and v a J. '-' e --�add e d t a >< , in the case of importation. Th:i.!::. Com-t talu.>s notice of thr~ phr-ase "at the time o f r�� e mo v i:d. " � The L:n�J r�efer'S to thE~ actual mar'l<et value o f t h e m:i n e r�� a 1 s <l'l:; t.: h e t i mf? t h e s e 111 i n e t"� a J. s w~~ r�� e mo v e d a wa y f r�� o m 1,; h e p o s i t: i o n i t o c c u p i e d , o b v i o u s J. y r' E~ f e t" r' i n g to Phil:i.ppine valu.':ltion and .:,\Tl<:llysis. because it i.~; in this countr-y I��Jher��e t:l�1ese miner��.::~:t.~,;. vJ!~r"�!:~ P><tr��.::,cted, l�'emoved and eventually shipped abroad. To reckon the actual ma�r''l-<et value at the time of r��emov.3l is also consistent with the essence of an e><ci.se ta><. I t :i. s a char�� !:1 e upon the privilege of severing or extracting minerals from the earth, and is due and payable upon removal of the mineral pr-oducts fr��om its bed rn� mines (!;ee Republic Cement vs. Comm, 23 SCRn 967). The law is clear. It does not speak ar�e unloaded at thE~ CDuntt�y of destination neithet" does 7:32

DECISION C.T.A. CASE No. 4702 - 12 - it speak of the selling price as the basis of the excise The lav1 even r�eq1..1:i.l��'es. p<'.'lyrneJlt of f!HCi!!,e taxes upon t h ~~ ~-�em ova 1 of t.: h P min er-�a 1 ol�-� mi 11 f~t''�:\ 1. p�r'od uct or�� q UEI.t't''Y t'e!50'Jt"�ces fr�om th<7~ loc<:1lity 1-'lhet��e mined 01�' upon 1�'emoval ft'om customs custody in the case of impor�tations (Sec. l~.".i.t (c) of the T.:1.x Coclr,~). I t 1-'IO'..IJ.d then necf.~ssit<:\te i::\n an a 1 y s i s n f t.: h t'~ ~; e rn e t i:i< 1 .1. i c mi n ~~ t'' c:~ 1 ~; '-' p o n i t s 1�' e mo v '"' 1 t o bf? ;:,ble to c:H.::complish the payment of e>�:cisf.�~ t.:;:\xes as required by law. Fut"�thE~t..�mol�"�e, i t ~�Joulcl be impossible fo1�' payment of excise taxes if one has to wait for the final / analy!sis to bf? done in the cotm�h'Y ~�Jhet'e it is to be shipped <:"\nd cf,'l���t:airlly impl�-�.::\ctical as ~�Jhat the petitionE~t' has done, to basE~ the �~xcise ti::\x on the valuation done h!~'r''e in thE~ PJ ..,J.lippines ;::~ncl thE�~n latet' on claim for' a r�efund i f i t appear�~; th.::Yt: the final c:\l'lalysis accompliE;hE~d abroad reveal a much lower price. This set-..�up establishr~cl by the petit i onet' is conb���at�y to the pt�inciple of administr�ative feasibility which is one of the b<:\sic pt��inciples of ,,,, sound ta>< T.::1>-: la~'ls should be cc:'lpc:,bl�~ of convenient, just and effective administration which is why it fi><es a standard or a uniform tax base upon which taxes should be p;aid. I11 th(:~ ca~;e of e><cisf~ t.:~>:PS' on minet��als ;and 733

DECISION C.T.A. CASE No. 4702 - 13 - miner��,:~.J. pt'oducts, the basis pr'ovidf!d by lC:H'J is th�~ actual m<::~d-<et v�<.lue of th�~Sf! m:i.net-�.:~ls at the time of t~emoval. P ~? t i t i o n e r"� .:~ r�� q u e s t 11 i"' t e >< c :i. s e t C.-\ >< e s <;; h ou 1 d b e b a s t? d o n the amount :i.ndicc.:\tec:l in the final invoicf: because the ~} o v e r�'n men t in 1�~ e c e i v in q i t s r�� o y <d t i ~ s ac k no vJl e cl ~} e s t hi s amount ,::~s it~; bc.:\5 is. We disagree with the reasoning of e><CiSf! is d :i. ff et"�ent fl~om l�''D'f'i:."!lti!~S. the privilege of extracting minerals from the earth while royalty as the term is used and understood in mining and o i l oper��,;,,tion~; 11110ans a shar�'f:' in th�~ pr~oduct: or~ pr�'ofit Vo 1.. P� f:)(i~j) � ThPt~f~fot~e paid to thf.~ government is rightfully based on the amount indicated in th~? final invoice because it is this amount vJhich ~�Jill be 'r~eceived by t h e seller~ fr~om t h e buyer~ as con~;idet~ation for the sale of mineral products. I t is ~��Jell settlt�d :i.n om~ jut~ischction th;:\t tax as such, t,::~>< exemption Ci:\nnot be allowed unless gt~antecl in the mo!d; e x p l i c i t ;:mel cateyot~ical lan~}uage. <l~esin _,. Inc. V� c� n u cl i t en~ De n e t-� ;:d o f t h e f.Ali J.. , et.al., El. H. No. 171388, Oct. ;:;::'3, 1980; Union C,.-:,n��bicle Phil. vs. Comm. of Intet~nal Hevenue, CTI-1 Case No. 2876, nu~J� 15, 13!33). 734

DECISION C.T.A. CASE No. 4702 -- 1'+ - t: r, p !it 1\ t: i \! <::� npci' ;:1l: e .i. t: ,. ( L f.) Iii Ill i :::. :;; i () n p ,. D f J I i t e ('� l i ,::\ J I: e \ r� l ., IJ p n \1 ~::, � J. !,II..\ f.' ' J nc .. , IN VIEW OF ALL. THE FOREGOING., r�r:�Lit::i.on(''r''''<:' r.l.t:ti.m J<n� �c'f'..ITid �.n ttie ;:,;mount oi . n;::: p::~:c.;,,::,!:.;'�n i<:: l1<:?r�r::hv c!enic�'c:l v1il:l1 / SO ORDERED. GRUBA ,TIJdf.clf'! WE CONCUR: ( I...Jn L e c:\ \' c ) ER �STU D. ACOSTA f 'C <::. :i. c:i i II 1J 1 _ 1J I..UJ e ,.,; t ~ RAI'tiON 0. DE VEY r::1 s s o c:� i t 1::�\ e ,J u. t.l !:; -~? CEF-.1-T I F .I: CA,- I CJN h f~ r-�� P h y c::� f:' i � l; :i. r y t h i't t; t: I �, i "'� Li e c:� :i. c:. :i. o n hie'! c; t'' f.�! clr:~h (> d <::>. f t P i�-� c:l u c c::� o n '"� 1.\ J t ;;,\ t: :i. n n ,:'HII o n q t. h <"' mP mh r-� .,.. '"� n f I <::>. >: np pr! a J. s in .::o.cc rn�dr:�. nc e v.� it.: h bec.'l: :i. on l :.::;;,, l:he L:otn-�t of of tii~? t.:nn;:.t:i.tu.ti.on .. (h � t; i c 1 e �I (.:o�.�.l��t: GRUBA Juri 11 '7: of!,"\.>�: f.:lppPi':1.l�::. 735