CTA Case No. 3042 (Decision)

ll EPU nur. OF" 1 H 11. l'IHUPi?'IN'iil$ � /COURT OF T.U APPEALS nt�r~ON CITY LMG CHEMICALS, I NC. , / � Petitioner - versus - C. T .A. CASE NO . 3042 COMMISSIONER OF' CUSTOMS, Respo ndent.. X- - - - - - - - - - - X DEC I S I 0 N Petitioner seeks to vaca t e respondent Commissioner of Customs' Order of October 10, 1979 , dismissing its appeal from the de cision of the District Collector of Customs dated December 27, 1978, relative to a claim for refund of allegedly excess duties, taxes and surcharge in the amount of Pl56,65l.OO . It appears that petitioner, a domes tic cor- poration, had an importation of 105 metric tons of potassium hydroxide from Yokohama, Japan , which arrived in the Port of Batangas on March 15, 1976, on board the "SS Barnes Star", Registry No. 564, declared under Customs Entry No. 725, Series of 1976, at an FOB price of $388.70 per metric to ns as confirmed by the consul ar and commercial invoices with a dutiable value o f $46,119.55 o r P344,074.90 vis a vis the Collector of Customs' asse ssment 44

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3042 - 2- based on the published value of the article at $681.52 per metric ton and a d u tiable value of $80,861.00 or P603,268.7B, the liabilities com- paratively computed as follows: ------- Collector's Petitioner's Ass-esSi:ii'eti'i: De c lara t iori Di f f e r e n c e �----~ Customs Duty � � ~ 60,327.00 ii!34,407.00 {i! 25,920.00 Advance Sales Tax 19,216.0 0 18 ,0 82.00 1,13t~.oo Surcharge ��� 129,597.00 129,597.00 840.00 io o.��ao Wharfage . � � � I? '9'";9 8 Petitioner paid the amount of P209,980.00 per Collector's assessment as above-itemized under Official Receipt No. 182702 on March 21, 1978, but disputed the appraisal of the shipment on the basis of the publishe d home consumption \Blue as well as the imposition and collection of surcharge for undervaluation in Protest Cas e No . 13/78 for a claimed refund of Pl56,651 . 00 representing alleged excess payment. The Collector of Customs reiterated the correctness of the aforestated assessment and collection and accordingly denied petitioner's claim for refund in a decision dated December 27, 1978, copy thereo f was received by petitioner on February 7, 1979. Thereafter, a notice of appeal was filed on February 20, 1979 by petitioner from the decision of the Collector to the respondent Commissioner of 45

DECISION �- CTA CASE NO. 3042 - 3- Customs upon due payment of P20.60 in documentary customs stamps under O.R. No. 5247968. The appealed protest was given due course and docketed as Customs Case No. 79/11, which was dismissed by the res- pendent Commissioner of Customs in an Order dated June 11, 1979 on the ground that the appeal fee consisting of PlO.OO customs stamp and P0.30 docu- mentary stamp was not paid nor affixed on the notice of appeal pursuant to the pertinent provisions of Sect i on 3301 and Section 3303 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, more particularly Paragraph VI of the Customs Administrative Order No. 226 of Decembe r 3, 1957, quoted as follows: "Paragraph VI. Every protest othe~ than refund of internal revenue taxes mentioned in Paragraph V hereof must have affixed thereto a customs stamp the value of PlO.OO and docu- mentary customs stamp of P0.30, otherwise the same shall not be given due course." Likewise, a motion for the reconsideration of the aforesaid Order was denied by the respondent in an Order dated October 10, 1979, copy thereof received by petitioner on November 5 , 1979. Hence this petition for review filed on November 15, 1979. The precise issue is imm e diately recognized as nothing more t han whether petitioner failed to pe r fect an appeal in the manner prescribed by law and regulation. 46

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3042 - 4- In dismissirig the appeal, respondent maintains fealty to the statutory requisitions, such that, "if the required customs stamp was not yet affixed at the time of filing, the same should be affixed thereto before the reglementary period expires , otherwise, the appeal is not perfected and therefore barred." (R . P. v. M/L "King Star", Customs Case No. 864, September 28, 1971). "The stamps require- ment is in the nature of a docket fee and failure to pay the docket fee for appeals on time is fatal." (Lipat v. Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case No. 1442, October 26, 1966) ~ Simply stated, petitioner's notice of appeal has none of the stamps affixed in the correct amount of Pl0.30, the payment of ~20.60 likewise, in documentary customs stamps, notwithstanding. To dispel the sprouting impression of non- compliance, petitioner avers that as borne by the records, it did (1) _file a notice of appeal within the reglementary per:od, (2) _pay the corresponding fees, ascertained and demanded by the customs cashier in the amount of P20.60 for documentary customs st~mps as indicated in O.R. No. 5247968 dated February 20 , 1979 (E,~hibit "A", Petitioner) and the Collector of the Batangas Customshouse pursuant to Section 2308 of the Tariff and Customs 47

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3042 - 5- Code, (3) _transmitted the notice of appeal together with all the records of the case to the respondent Commissioner of Customs accordingly, (4) .docketed as Customs Case No. 79/11. By this, petitioner appears to have fared consistent with the expedient practice infused cognizance by the Bureau of Customs itself, thus , "Instances do occur in the sub-ports of the Bureau of Customs where said offices run out of supply of documentary stamps and appeals are received and/or processed without affixing the same to the notice of appeal, in which event, the recourse of our cashiers is to issue an official receipt in the correct amount in lieu of the customs documentary stamp appeal fee and just annotate the fact of such payment including the number of such official receipt, the date of its issue and the date of filing of the appeal on the notice of appeal itself. This practice has been considered regular and legitimate and customs cashiers are very well aware of this." Petitioner did no less, we agree. It appear s quite evident that at the time of the filing of the notice of appeal both customs of fici als a nd petitioner understood and believed that the t o tal amount of ~20.60 paid for documentary customs stamps includes the questioned appeal fee of I l

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3042 - 6- �110 . 30, "othe r wise the same shall not be given due course" (Par. VI. CAO, supra.) ' � as "no such document shall be issued or granted by any customs official until the correc t amount of stamps shall have been af f ixed or cancelled" (Sec . 3301, Tariff and Customs Code)~ That the appeal was given due course negates any comedy of errors and we deem it but fair not to fa s hion any further issue . Equity insists upon the conscientious compliance by the customs officials of their duty, otherwise, we must hold the petitioner who has indeed complied and relied on that duty is remediless. Rather than be flummoxed into taking a precipitate action , respondent could have been more circumspect before setting aside the appealed protest upon which pet i tioner's alleged right to a refund may be exercised or lost. Whatever pall of uncertainty hanged over the specific purpose of petitioner's payment, we are the better satisfied that the paid amount of P20.60 has the merit of being easily understood and readily applied sufficient to meet the effective toll of Pl0.30 for the requir ed docket/appeal fee. If, however 1 such be a consequence of a bureaua:;=1.tic fumble or official cluffisiness in handling routine administrat i ve p roc ess , it will be too much of a .. stretch to hold petition'er accountable for more

DECISION CTA CASE NO. J042 - 7- than what was called upon it to do. We find a great deal of force in the holding , that, "Where the failure of the appellants to pay the required docket fee was due to the mistake of the municipal treasurer and not to the fault of the appellant for he merely relied on the information given him by said official, for such a mistake, the appellants should not be made answerable, for they acted in good fc:tith relying upon the word of the municipal treasurer who becc:tuse of the nature of his duties is in a position to know the correct amount of the fees needed to perfect an appeal. To hold otherwise, could be unfair and unjust and wo uld amount to a miscarriage of justice. 'Every citizen has the right to assume and trust that a public officer charged by law with certain duties knows his dut ie s and performs them in accordance with law. To penalize such citizen for relying upon said officer in all good faith is re- pugnant to justice. ' (Segovia v. Barrios and Bretana, (15 Phil. 764.)"_ (Tagulao v. Padlanmundok, L-15550, May 30, 1960; cited in Barnido , et al. v. Balana, et al. L-26275, July 26, 1966, 17 SCRA 660). We conclude, and this is all what we need decide, that petitioner has substantially complied with the requisites prescr ibed by law and regulations for ''

r- DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3042 - 8- perfecting an appeal. WHEREFORE, the Order appealed from is set aside with directions for further proceedings on the merits of the case. No costs. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Metro Manila, January 29 , 1982. ~~ Associate Judge vm CONCUR: ,Judge