CTA Case No. 3063 (Decision)

V PAN! �,Y ELECTRIC COMPANY i INC., Petitioner, - versus - C.T.A. CASE NO. 3063 THZ ACTING COM.t1ISS IONER OF CUS TOMS , Respondent. X - .�� - - - -------X DE C I S I 0 N Petition for review of the decision of respon- dent Commissioner of ~ustoms affirming the denial by t he Collector of Customs of the Port of Iloilo o f the protests filed by petitioner Panay Electri~ Company, Inc., against the assessment and collection of customs duties and compensating tax on various machinery, equipment and spare parts imported by it for use in connection with its franchised business as public utility company engaged in the generation and distributio n of electric li ght , heat an ~ power i the City of Iloilo and adjacent municipalities. The following are the facts which are alleged in the petition for review and a dmitted ~n the anGwer that gave rise to the present controversy: 1 . Petitioner is a corporation duly organized and e isting under the laws of the Philippine s with principal place of business at Iloilo City, wh il e 2 03

.' DECI SION - 2TA CASE NO. 3063 ~ 2- r esfondent is the duly des ignated Acting Commissioner of Customs who is charged with the duty of en f orcing cu s toms laws, and may be serve d with s ummons a t his office a t the Bureau of CuLtoms, Port of Manila. 2. Under. Republic Act No. 5360, petit i oner v1a s granted a franchise "to construct, ma ' ntain and opera t e an electric light, heat and power sys t em for the purpose of generating and/or distribut ing electric light, heat and power for sale within the City of Iloilo and the Municipalities of Sta . Barbara an d Pav iw. , both in the Province of Iloilo". (Sec~ion 1, Republic Act No . 5360) ~ 3. Section 5 of Republic Act No. 5360 provides that "in conside- ation of the franchise and ri ahts hereby granted , the gran �..:: e (peti t ioner) _shall pay a franchise tax e qu al to two .I?.~!_�_e.E.E:!:U:~ of the gross ear r. ing s for ele c tric current sold under this fran- ch i se: Prov id ~ 1 , Tha~ the said franchis e ta x of t wo Ee r c:~n tuill o f th e g r oss ea r ni ng s sha l l be in lieu cf t axes, dut ies and as sessments , licens es and fees of whatever nature and which ma y be l e v i ed by any gove rnmental a utho r~ ty now and in th e future upon p r iv i~ege s, e rnings, incc ~e, machine r y a nd equ ipmen t, wa t t-hour meters , poles , wi r e s , t r ans- n 'l '~ "> J '

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3063 - 3- formers, and insulators used by the grantee (peti- tioner) ~ from which taxes, dut ies , licenses, fees and assessments the grantee (pe titioner) .is her~"' by expressly exempted~. 4. Pe t itioner imported for its use in connection with its franch i s ed operations various machine r y, equipment and spare parts wh i ch arrived at the Port of Iloilo on several occasions and declared under differen t import entries , to wit: "En tr y No . 14 - One Case - 6 pes. Injector Body Entry No . 30 - One Case Sk id Distributor Ent~y No . 46 - One Case Vulcan Engine Spares Entry No. 47 - One Case Vulcan Engine Entry No. 48 - Two Cases Spares for Vulcan Engine Entry No. 68 - One Case - .238 pes. Fil te r Element Ent ry No . 81 - One Box - 21 Uni ts Load Brea k Fuse Entry No. 100 - Th ree Skids Panel and Distributor Boa:d and pares Entry No . 135 -One Case - .3 pes . Big ~nd Bea r ing Entry No. 136 - One Tri-wall Carton Spat es for MIRRLESS KV16 Major Engine Entry No . 159 - One Skid Power Distributor Cutout~ I.E . 2968278 - One Pa rcel Spares for MIRRLESS KV16 Major Engine Entry No . 169 -One Case Electrical Spa re Parts for Vulcan Engine " 5. Notwi ths tanding Section 5 of Rep ub l ic Act No . 53 60, the Collector of Customs of Iloilo assessed petitioner the amount s of ~63,2 45 and ~31,0 59 as customs dutie s and compenstt:.ing taxes, re specti ve!_ , for the importat ions . Petitioner paid said cu s toms du t i es and camp ns a ting taxes and du ly p r otested the

.' DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3063 - 4 �- same, to wi�t: ~'.!lt:f..Y Dut ies -BI-R -Ta-x OLR No. Date Paid Prote st H�..~ :nhe r 14 p 501 !1 381 367352 Feb. 18, 1977 1,284 367356 Feb. 28 , 19 77 --�-~---- 30 6 , 409 343 367358 Apr. 22, 1977 4 ,001 367359 Apr . 22, 1977 1 46 40 3 6,232 367360 Apr. 22, 1977 2 1 ,653 367361 June 3, 1977 3 47 5 , 868 1,006 367 363 June 24, 1977 4 6,480 367364 July 21 , 1977 5 48 8,690 1,716 367367 Oct. 6, 1977 6 2,675 367368 Oct. 6 , 1 977 7 68 1,719 11018 367373 Nov. 29, 1977 8 81 4,541 99 18693 31 Dec. 14, 1977 9 4ll 71 367376 Dec. 21, 1 977 10 100 8,645 11 12 135 2,394 13 1 3C 3,682 159 4, 728 2368 278 20 3 169 -1-5-,4-6-2 Total ~~~~�~~ ~~1!::2~~ 6. In an order , the Collector of Customs of the Po rt of I l oilo d ~ nie d said protests on the g rou nd that the said v:ovision of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 5360 Gad al ready been repealed by Section 105 of the Tariff and Cu stoms Code, as ame nd ed by Pre sidential Decree No . 3 4 and by Secti on 190 of the Tax Code, as amended by Pre s i dential Decree No. 69. Said order was duly appea l ed by petitioner to respondent. 7. On December 27, 1979, respondent rend e red his final decision affirming the appealed orde r of the Collector of Customs of the Port of Iloilo, which decision was r e c eived by p eti ti oner onl y on February 13, 1980. Unde r pa rag r aph 9 of its re tition for review;

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3063 - 5- petitioner states t~at the comp e nsating tax involve d in this case has already been the subject matter of a claim for refund with the Commissioner of Internal Reve nue which was appealed by petitioner to this Court to suspend the two-year prescriJtive per iod to cl ~ irn a refund under the provisions of Section 292 of the National Internal Reve1 ue Co~e . Since as reiterated on page 4 of the Memornndum for Petitioner (p . 49, CTA records)~ the compensating tax mentioned in this appeal h . s, in the meantime, become the subject matter of a cla im fo r refund filed with the Commis s ioner of Internal Revenue, which claim is p : esently the sub ~ act of CTA Case No. 2922 (2992) ~ Luw pending before thi s Court, impleading the proper r espond e n t therein the Commissioner of Internal Re v e n ue , this dec i sio n will deal and confine itself only to the customs duties a ssessed and collected on t he i mpo rtations specifi~d in paragraph 4 of th e petition for review. The parties are not in controversy on the computation of the customs duties payable by, or the amount refundable to, petiti oner as the case may be. Peti ti o n er as s ails the Go v e rnmen t's ri g ht t o i mpose c u s toms du t ie s on its i m o rta tion s o f various

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3063 - .6 - mac~inery ~ equi pment an d spare parts for use in con::1ect i on with its enfr:.:n chised business on the ground that under its charter, i ts payment of two E��_C~l~~~ tax based on its gross earn i ngs for electric current sold is, by express provision of Section 5 of Republic Act No . 5360 , i n lieu of all taxes, duties, of whatever natu r e and which may be levied by any gove r nment authority now a d in the future upon wachine ry and equipment , watt-il.our meters , poles , wires , transformers and insu l ators used by petitioner , for which taxes , duties , peti- tioner is expressly exempted . To quo te Section 5 o~ Republic Act No. 5360: "Sec. 5. In consider a tio .1 of the franch~ se and rights hereby granted, the grantee shall pay 2 franchise tax equal. to two per centum c.. .~� the gross earnings for electric curren L sold under this franchise : Provided, That the said fran- chise tax of two per centum of the gross earn ings shall be in lieu of t axes , duties and assessments, licenses and feffiof what- soever nature an~ which rna r be le vied by any governmental authority now a nd in the future upon privileges , earnings, income, machinery and equipment , watt-hour meters , poles, wires, transformers, and insul ators used by g r antee, from which taxes , dutie s, lie nses, fees and assessments the grantee is expressly exempted. " Respondent in his a ns wer avers as special an~ affirmative defense, however, that Presidential Decree No. 34 which took e~fect on Nov mbet 17, ~972 2 0S

DECISIO[-~ - CTA CAS E NO. 3063 re peal e d and/or amended t he cu s toms duty-exemption privil03e previously en joyed by petitioner on importations of machiner y and equ i pme n t, watt-hour meters , poles, wires, tr ansformers and insulators grant ed under its franchise (R epublic Act No. 5360) � The last paragraph of Section 105 of said decree pr ovides: " The provisions of general and speci al l aws , including thos e granting franchise s, Lo the contrary notwith stand ing , t her e shall be no exempt ions whatsoever from the payment of customs dutie s except those pro- vided for i n this Code; those granted to government agencies, instrumen alities or gov�er nmen t-owned or con trolled co rpo rat ions with existing contrac s, commitments , agree- ments , or obligations ( requir ing such exemption) with foreign countries; inter- natio na l ins titction s, a ssociations or organizations enti tled to exemption pur s uant to agreements or sp~cial laws; and tho s~ that may be granted by the President upon prior recommendation o f t hP Nat ional Eco nomic Devel o pment Authori ty in the inte rest of national economic development." The issue for determinat i on , therefore, as pos _d by petitioner , is: Whethe r or no t Sec tion 105 o f the Tariff an d Customs Code, as ame nded by Pres- i dential Decree No. 34, has revoked the g r ant of exemption from customs d uties to petition e~ under Section 5 of Republic Ac t No. 5360 . Petitioner 1 s submis s ion that Section 105 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as a~ended by Presidential Decree No . 34, could not have revoked the grant

DECiclON - CTA CASE NO. 3063 - 8- of exe .tption from customs du t.ies to petitioner nder Section 5 of Uep1blic Act No. 5360 on th~ ground t h at its franchise pr '~eludes th e irnposition of any t ax o t he r than the franchise t ax which the Gover n- rnent may impose "now and in the future" is p o sitively wi thou!: me :: it.. PeLit ioner's franchise t~ construct, mai n ta i n and operate an electric light, heat and power system f or the purpose of generating and/o r d i stributing electric light, heat and/or power for sale within t he City of Iloilo and the Municipal ities of Santa Barbara and Pavia , both in the Province of Ilo i lo , is by expr e ss provision of Section l of its charter (Republic Act No . 5360 , approve d on June 15, 1968 ) ~ subject to the provisions of the Const i t ut ion and to the terms and conditions established in Act No . 3C36 , as a m nded by Comrnonwe~lth Act No. 132. Section 8, Article XIV of the 1 935 Constitution, . under w ose author ity the franchise of petiti oner \vas granted, specificall y provides tha t: "No franchise or right shall be grante ~ to any i n di- vidual , firm , or corporation , except under the c ondition that :t shall be subject to amendment , alte r ation, or repeal by Congr e~ s wh en the public int ere~ t so r e qu i res ." The p o wer of t h e State tp .-, 1�~ o�

.. DECIS�ION - CTA CASE NC. 30 63 - 9- amend the franchise of petitioner, as p~ov i ded in the Constitution, is therefore deemed to be a part of such franchise. (Hoa Hin vs. David, 105 Phil. 783 ; Lealda Electric Co . Inc. vs . Commissioner of Intern al Rev nue, L-16428, April 0 , 1963, 7 SCRA 728; Imus Electric Co. vs . Court of Ta Appeals 1 L-2242i. , l.\1ar.c h 18, 1967 , 19 SCRA 612; Guagu a Electric Light vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, L-23611 , April 24, 1967 , 19 SCRA 790. ) And in Section 12 of Act No. 3636, which took effect on December 7, 1929, it is provid_d that: "Sec . 12 o Thi s franchise is granted subject to the provisions of Act Numbered Three thousand one hundred and eight, as amended, and wi th_ll!.�L...~mder sta~ anq_ upon the condit ion that i t sh~ll_~b ject to amendment, alterat ion, gr repe~1 Ei....lb_~ Na tion.3._l As se~�1Y_or _b_y_~~-_fOl}.;lE._f~ of the United States , and that it shall be subject in allrespects to the limit- ' ations upon corpo rations and ~_2~ing_ of franchises contai ed in the Constitution of. the Phili_p~:h_~ , and also-- subject to the provi~ i ons of Act Numbered Fourteen hundred a nd fifty-nine of the Ph ilippine Legislature, as amended. (Act No. 3636, Permanent and General Stat~tes, Vol . I, p. 682 , 1971 ed.; -mphasis supplied.) Accordingly, when petitioner accepted its fran chise , it di ~ so with the u1derstanding that the constitutional and statutory reservations of the right of the State to amend, alter, modify or repeal petitioner's f c anchise when public interest

.. - DE Ci~ ION CTA CASE NO . 30 63 - 10 - so requires became an unwritten c ondi tion thereof. On the ass umpt ion therefore th at Section 5 of Repu blic Act No. 53 60 gran ted exemp t ion from customs dut ies to petitioner on its im or t at i ons o f machinery, equipment and spare parts for use in its franchised ope rations, s uch exemption may be revoked or repealed anytime by the State when the public i nterest so requires . Th acts of the Leg i slature granting franch ises should be construed so as not to contra- vene or violate t he Constitution, for otherwise said legi sla t i ve ac ts wou l d be nLl ll and void or uncon s- ti tut ion al. (Th e Philipp ine Long Distance Te lephone Co. vs . Collector of Inter nal Revenue, 90 Phil. 674 .) It is thus self~ev iden t tha t pe titioner's fra nc hi se does not preclude the imposition of any tax other than the franchise tax which the Government may i mpose when the public interest so requir e s , not- withstanding the "now-and-in- the-futur e" pr oviso '~. h ereof. Public i n terest is the basic and pr imordi al concern of the State . It is in pu rsuance of the constitutional mandate, s orda i ned i n the p reamble of the Constitution under whose authority petitioner's f r anchise was gr a nted, to pro ..ota the gener al welf ar e: It i s a matter of public necess ity or pol icy , for the public good and economic well-being of the 212

.. DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3063 - 1 1 �~ cou ntry. And this c ou lc"! me an alte r at ion, a mend- . ment or revoca tion of franchi ses or rights granted, within constitutional limits, in the i nte rest of nation al econom i c development or adjustment to suit the needs of the changing e c onomic cond i t ions of the country. It has been declared that the e c onomic interests o f t he State may just i fy the e xer cise of i ts c ontinuing ard dominant protective power notwithstanding i n terference even with con- trac-s and property rights. (Rutter vs . Esteban , 93 Ph il . 68 , 73, citing Home Building & Lo an Association vs . Blaisdel, 78 L. ed. 413, 428. ) Thus, a s en~ncia ted in the Explanatory Note (whe reases ) _to ?reside n t ial Decree No. 34 , am ending the Tarif f a n d Customs Code, in o:::de.r to: (1) Simplify the present complicated tariff structure and mprove thereby the administration of cus-l:-,oms ; (2) Raise additional re venues; (3) Provide tariff protection to economically des irabl e a nd deserving local industries; (4 ) Serve as an i nstrument for barga:ning vis- a-vis other countries; (5) .. Allocate properly available resources from investments in non-~ssentials to investments in

.. DECISION �- CTA CASE NO . 30 6 3 - 12 - essential and e xpor table go ods~ (6) Prevent technical smuggl ing; p u blic pol icy would seem to require t hat only those articles enumerated in Sect i on 10 5 of the Tariff and Custoills Code, as asended by Presiden ti al D ec ~ ee No. 34 , should be exempt from the payme nt of impor t dutie s upon complia nce with t he formalities pres- cribed in, or with the regulations promulgated by the Commissione r of Customs wi t h the approval o f Secret a~ y (n ow Minister ) o f Finance. Consequently , und er the last paragraph of s aid Sec tio n 1 0 5, su..E!:...~' there sha ll be no exemptions whatsoever from the payment of customs duties , t he prov is i on s of ge neral to the contrary notwithstanding, except: (l ) Thes e provided for in the Tariff and Customs Code ; ( 2 ) Those granted to gove rn ment ag e nc ~es , instr ume ntalities o r ~overnme n t-owned or controlled corpor ations with exis&ing contracts, commitments, agr eemen t s , or ob l igati on s (re qui ring suc h e xe mp tions) with fo reign countr i es; (3 ) Those gr a nted to international i nstitu~ions , a s~oc i a t i on s or o rgan iza tions ent i t led t o exe mftion pursuant to agr eements or special laws; and 21 :}

.. DECISI ON - CTA CASE NO. 3063 - 13 - (4) . Those t:;1at may 'e gr ante d by t..:.he Pr es ident upon pr i o r recoMmendation of the National Economic Development Authority in the in terest of nat ional economic development. In the interest of national economic development and t he needs of the changing economic condit ions of the country, nat iona l welfare and publ ic interest appear t o requir , therefore, as declared in the In ~ roductory Note to Presidential Decre e No. 3 4 1 ame nd ing the Ta~i-f a nd Customs Code, that th ere should be no exemptions wha tsoever f rom the payment of cu stoms duties exc~pt those ment ione d in t he last parag r aph of Section 1 0 5 o f the Tar i ff and Customs Code as a ,ended b~ Pre3idential Decree No. 34. And since petiti on e ~ ~c cep te d its franc hi se with � th e under s tanding of th � constitut io~al and statutory rese�vations of the right of the State t o amend, alter or repeal the same whcin the public inte rest so requires, petitioner can not claim that the "now-and�-in-the-future" proviso of its char ter has the effect of precluding the impositi on of customs duties on its importations of machine ry , equipment and spare p~rts l ' r . its u se in connection with its enfr ar..chis ed b�1s iness.

.' DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3063 - 14 - Pet itioner contends, however, tha t i n ord 0r that Sec t i on 105 of the Tariff a.d Customs Code may be deemed to have amended or altered i t s franchise , the intention t .o do so mu st cl ear l y and with out doubt appear from the said Section 1 05. Petitioner ' s contention may not be inherently implau s ible, but t he law is s o clear, ~pecific and mandatory that it leaves no room for doubt or interpretation. It merely calls for application as thus worded . The control l ing legal provision, a 'c"' already quote d above , reads : "'rhe provisions of general and special l aws , i �: cluding t hose granting franchises, � to the contrar y notwithstanding, there shall be no exemptions whatsoever from payment of customs duti es x x x . " The applicable provision makes it� ex- . pl icitly and abundantly clear tha t exemptions from payment of customs dutiesr including those a r ante~ under franchises , are no lo~ger available except those e numerated in Section 10 5 , and petitioner is undoubtedly not one of t hem. While it is t~ be admitte d, under settled rules of statutory constr uction , that a later statute, general i n its terms and no t expressly r epeal ing a p r ior spec ial statute, will ordinarily not a f fec t the special provisions of such earl i er statute, the

.' DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 3063 - 15 - duties ," is so plain and explic it, free fJ:om amb iguity or doubt,definit~ an d clear in meaning, th a t it unquestionably incl udes exemptions from customs d uties granted under special laws or franchises, including the fran c hise of petitioner , on the fl. s u~!J2�� tion tha t such exemption from customs dut : es d oe s exist. In granting petiti oner a l egislative franc hise to construct , maintain a nd operate an elec t ric light, heat and power system for the purpose of generating and/cr distributing electric light, heat and power for sale ~ithin the City of Ilo ilo and adjacent municipalities , Congress might have conside red and made provision for all the cirCUffiJt ances of the particular ca s e, but the power of the State to amend, alter or repea l when 'the pub lic in~er est so . requires, as provided in the Constitution and in the franchise of petitioner , is also a part of petitioner'~ cha rter. The peremptory requir em-nt s of public interest whi ch co u ld mean priority me su re s vital to the national economic development programs of the Governmen t an- the needs of the ch~nginq economic conditions of the c ountr y, as envisaged in '7 .0.;.., J1i.

.' DECISION ~ CTA CASE NO. 3063 -� 16 --~ Presidential Decree No. 34 , amending the Tariff and Customs Co de , appear to s : ~ess the neces s ity of lim i ting exemptions from customs duties to those enumerated in the last paragraph of Section 105 of t he Code. The ter~s of the statute provide the safest gr 1ide as to the views of the State on national interest or necessity which should not be construed so as to limit or preclude the Government from attaining or applying those views by legis- lation. In finding petitioner 1 S cause wi t hout merit, it bears emphasis that he who claims to be exempt from the payment of a particular tax must do so under clear and unmistakabl e terms found in the statute . Tax exemptions are strictly construed aga i nst the taxpayer, they being highly disfavored and may almost be said 11 to be odious to the l a w. 11 He who claims an exemption ~u s t be able to po int to some positive provision of law creating the right; it cannot be all owed to exist upo n a mere vague i mp lic2 tion or inference. (Asiatic Pet roleum vs. Ll an es, 49 Phil. 466 , 471; Un ion Garmen t Co., I nc . vs . Court of Tax Appeals, L- 16609, January 31 , 196 2 , 4 SCRA 304~ Phi lippine A cetyl e n~ Co., Inc . vs . Com..~i �:.:::, i one r of Interhal Re venue , L�~l970 7 r .t\ur_:~ u s t. 1. 7, 2 18

.. DEt:ISION ~ CTA CASE NO. 3063 .. 17 - 1967 , 20 SCRA 1056; Republic Flour Mills, Inc . vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, L-25602, February 18, 1970, 31 SCRA 520; Commissioner of Customs vs. Philippine Acetylene Co . & Co~rt of Tax Appeals, L-22443, May 29 , 1971, 39 SCRA 71; Davao Light and Power Co., Inc . vs. Comm issioner of Customs, L-28902, March 29, 1972, 44 SCRA 122.). The right o f taxation will not be he l d to have been surrendered unless the intention to surr Pnder is manifested by words too plain ~ o be mist � k~ n (Ohio Life Insurance & Trust Co. vs. Debolt, 60 Howard 1 416)~ for the state cannot strip i t s elf of t he most essent i al power of taxation by doubtf '.ll words, it cannot , by ambiguous language , be deprived of this highest attribute of sovereignty . (E rie Railway Co. vs. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 21 Wallace, 492, 499) ~ So, when exemption is claimed, it must be shown indubitably to exist, for every presumption is against it, and a well-founded doubt is fatal to the claim (Farrington vs. Tennessee & County of Shelby, 95 U.S . 679, 686 ) ~ (A s iat i c Petroleum Co. vs. Llanes, 49 Phil. 466, 471; Manila Electric Compan y vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenu e, L-~9987 & L-23844 , October 22, 1975, 67 SCRA - 51.) 21~

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3063 As stressed by the Su~~eme Court in Acting Commissioner of Customs vs . Manila Electric Company and Court of Tax Appeal s, L-23632, June 30, 1977, 77 SCRA 469, an exemption from taxation must be justified by words too clear to be mi srea � As set forth in Commissioner o f Internal Revenu � vs. Guerrero, L-20812, September 22, 1967 , 21 SCRA 180: "From 1906 , in Catholic Church v. Hastings to 1966, in Esso Standard Easter n , Inc. v. Acting Commissioner of Customs~ it has been the constant and uniform holding that exemption from taxation is not favored and is never presumed , so that if granted it must be strictly construed against the taxpayer. Affirm- atively put, the law frowns on exemption from taxation, hence, an exempting provision should be construed strictiss!mi juris ." (Catholic Church vs. Hastings, Commissioner of Customs,� L-~1841, October 28, 1966 , 18 SCRA 488 . The opinion also cited Government vs . Monte de Piedad , 35 Phil. 42; Asiatic Petroleum Co. vs . Llanes , 49 Phi l. 466; House vs. Pos das, 53 Phil. 338; Phil . Tel and Tel. Co. vs. Collector, 58 Phil . 639 ; Greenfield vs. Meer , 77 Phil. 394; Collector of Intern-1 Revenue vs. Manila Joc key Club, 98 Phil . 670; Phil. Guaranty Co., Inc. vs.- 22 0

.. DE C I S�ION CTA CASE NO . 3063 - 19 - Commis sione r., L-22074, Septembe r 6, 1965, 15 SCRA 1; ~bad vs. Co urt of Tax Appeals, L-20 834, October 19, "9 66, 1 8 SCRA 374.) The ne�t result is that the dec ision o f r espon- dent denying the protests of petitioner again st the assessment and collection of customs duties o n its importations of mach i nery , equipment and spare parts for use in connection vJith its franchised business and d.clared under Impor t Entries Nos. 1 4 , 30, 46, 47, 48, 68 , 81 , 100 , 1 35 , 136, 159, 169 and Informal Entry No. 2968273 , al l Seiies of 1 977 of the Port of Iloilo , for lack of legal bas i s must have to be sus- tained . Petitioner Panay Electric Company, Inc. is not therefore entitled to the refund of the amount of ~63,245.0 0 as customs duties paid on its importations. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, we f in d no merit in the petit io fo r r ev iew and we hereby affirm the decision of respondent Commissioner of Customs in- sofar as it refers to the assessment and collect i o n o f customs duties . With coits against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Metro Manila, Apr il 30, 1981. ~Pre~sidi0n~5~a~ge J I I CONCUR: ~"?fNTti- ~A4~ Associate JudgrN ~~ � Assoc iate Judge