[ G.R. No. 11426. December 18, 1916 ] 35 Phil. 804
[ G.R. No. 11426. December 18, 1916 ]
WALTER E. OLSEN & CO., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
JOHNSON, J.:
The principal question presented by this appeal is whether or not an importer may present one question to the department of customs, by protest, for solution, and, on an appeal to the Court of First Instance, present another question entirely different.
It appears from the record that on or about the 30th of July, 1914, the plaintiff imported into the Philippine Islands, from the city of New York, forty-three ladies’ watches and forty-four gentlemen’s watches, the total value of said watches, as stated in the invoice, being $1,520. The invoice did not indicate the value of each watch of either class. The appraiser of the department of customs fixed the value of each of the ladies’ watches at $3.50 and the value of each of the gentlemen’s watches at $6, and assessed the duty upon said watches, in accordance with article [paragraph] 184 of the Tariff Law of 1909, at 25 per cent ad valorem.
On the 26th of August, 1914, the importer having received notice of the amount of duty imposed, presented the following protest:
“MANILA, August 26, 1914.
“The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,
“Manila, P. I.
“Sir : Protest is hereby entered against the action of the Collector of Customs for the port of Manila in assessing and collecting duty on certain watches under paragraph 184 at 25 per cent ad valorem, instead of returning same free as a product or manufacture of the United States.
“It is requested that this protest be held four months to enable us to obtain documentary evidence from the manufacturers.
“Reliquidation and corresponding refund is requested.
(Sgd.) “A. B. CRESAP,
“Attorney in fact for Walter E. Olsen & Co.”
Upon the 5th of April, 1915, the Insular Collector of Customs, upon a consideration of said protest, overruled and denied the same, in the decision following:
“The claim in this case is against the assessment of duties on certain watches under paragraph 184 at 25 per cent ad valorem instead of free under section 12 of the Tariff Law of 1909, as manufactures of the United States.
“On March 4, 1915, the protestants withdrew their claim as to free entry of this merchandise, and agreed to pay duties on the invoice price. The shipment in question consists of 43 ladies’ watches appraised at $3.50 each, and 44 gentlemen’s watches appraised at $6 each, no prices being given in the invoice. Upon investigation, however, it is found that their correct value is $5 for gentlemen’s size, and $5.50 for ladies’ size.
“As regards the statement made at the hearing of this case that ’the purchase was made by the American Tobacco Co., in a lot we are informed of half a million watches,’ which probably accounts for the low invoice price, the undersigned finds that while such may be the case, it is nevertheless true that such invoice price does not represent the market value of the article or its wholesale price as bought and sold in usual wholesale quantity as provided in Rule 13 (a) of the Philippine Tariff Law of 1909, or as same is freely offered for sale to all purchasers as defined in section 18 of the same tariff.
“Protest No. 10387 is therefore, for the foregoing reasons, overruled and denied. The merchandise in question will be reappraised at the value above stated, the entry reliquidated accordingly, and additional duties collected.
(Sgd.) “B. HERSTEIN,
“Insular Collector of Customs.”
On April 9, 1915, the plaintiff filed a notice of his appeal to the Court of First Instance, and the record was forwarded to said court.
On the 19th of July, 1915, the cause was brought on for hearing in the Court of First Instance. After hearing the respective parties, the Honorable Simplicio del Rosario, judge, on the 20th of October, 1915, rendered the following decision reversing and modifying the decision of the Collector of Customs:
“It is a fact proved by the testimony of the witnesses who have declared for the petitioner, which testimony is not contradicted, that the watches in this case (Exhibits A and B) worth, respectively, $3.75 and $4.75 gold, when bought at wholesale in America, from which they were imported by the plaintiffs, not for the purpose of selling them in the local market but only to distribute them as presents to the consumers or customers who purchase the products the ‘American Tobacco Company’ sells. The watch Exhibit A, is for gentlemen. The watch Exhibit B, which is smaller in size, is for young ladies.
“The appraisement made by the officers of the customhouse at the rate of $5 gold for every gentleman’s watch, and $5.50 for every young lady’s, is, therefore, improper. The said appraisement was confirmed by the Insular Collector of Customs in his decision, which is the object of the present appeal.
“The decision rendered by the said Collector of Customs is hereby reversed, and
“It is ordered that a new appraisement be made of the watches imported by the petitioner at the rate of $3.75 gold for every gentleman’s (Exhibit A) and $4.75 gold for every young lady’s watch (Exhibit B).
“Manila, P. I., October 20, 1915.
(Sgd.) “S. DEL ROSARIO, judge.”
From that conclusion of the Court of First Instance the defendant appealed to this court.
The Attorney-General, representing: the defendant and appellant, made the following assignments of error:
First. The court erred in deciding this case upon allegations not contained in the protest.
Second. The court erred in admitting evidence not tending to prove the allegations of the protest.
Third. The court erred in ordering a revaluation of the goods imported.
Upon an examination of the record, it is difficult to understand upon what theory an appeal was taken to the Court of First Instance from the decision of the Collector of Customs of the 5th of April, 1915. The record shows that on the 4th of March, 1915, the plaintiff expressed his willingness to pay the duty on said watches in accordance with the conclusions of the appraiser of the department of customs, in the following letter:
“MANILA, P. I., March 4th, 1915.
“COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS,
“Manila, P. I.
“SIR: In answer to your letter of March 2d, upon File No. 65, we beg to state that we conform to the payment of duty on all these watches at the price specified on the invoice received from the United States. Our Protest No. 10353 * * * was made for the purpose of establishing a precedent in the matter of these valuations. It is requested that the valuation decided upon in the above protest be made applicable to former and subsequent importations of like nature.
“Very respectfully.
“LUZON BROKERAGE COMPANY, INC.,
“by (Sgd.) A. B. CRESAP, for
“WALTER E. OLSEN & CO.”
It will be remembered that the appraiser of the department of customs fixed the value of each of the watches imported. From an examination of the evidence taken in the Court of First Instance it will be observed that the only question raised thereby related to the value of the watches in question and not to the question of the alleged error committed by the Collector of Customs in collecting 25 per cent ad valorem, in accordance with article [paragraph] 184 of the Tariff Law of 1909. The protest was based upon the ground that the Collector of Customs should have admitted said watches free of duty under section 12 of the Tariff Law of 1909. No question was presented to the Collector of Customs with reference to the value of the watches. No question was presented to the Court of First Instance relating to the alleged error of the Collector of Customs in not admitting said watches free. The only question presented to the Court of First Instance was: What was the value of each of the watches imported? Thus it will be seen that the plaintiff and appellee presented one question to the Collector of Customs and quite a different question to the Court of First Instance on his appeal. That is the principal error complained of by the Attorney-General.
In accordance with section 286 of the Customs Administrative Act (No. 355) (section 14, Act No. 1235; section 1, Act No. 1405), the decision of the Collector of Customs as to the amount of duty chargeable upon imported merchandise, is final and conclusive, unless the importer “within five days” after paying the duty shall “give notice in writing to the Collector of Customs, setting forth distinctly and specifically and in respect to each entry or payment, the reason for his objections thereto.” The law makes the decision of the department of customs final and conclusive, unless the importer, within five days after paying the duty, shall give notice in writing, in the manner prescribed. That rule of law must mean that the decision is final upon the questions presented. It can not refer to questions not presented. In other words, the appeal when taken to the Court of First Instance must be based upon the final decision of the department of customs, and not upon some question not presented. If the question had not been presented then, of course, there has been no decision and certainly no final decision. The decision of a question relating to imports is conferred, under the Law, upon the department of customs. The law makes his decision final, unless an appeal is taken within the time prescribed by law. The courts are without authority or jurisdiction to consider a question relating to imports until and after the department of customs has been given an opportunity to pass upon the same. That question has been so fully discussed by this court in the case of Behn, Meyer & Co. vs. Collector of Customs (17 Phil. Rep., 388) that we deem it unnecessary to extend the discussion here. In that case we held that the importer, after filing his protest, can not change, enlarge, or modify the basis of his protest.
Without discussing the other assignments of error, for the reason that we deem our conclusions upon the first one conclusive as to the right of the court to pass upon the question presented, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the lower court should be revoked, and without any finding as to costs, it is so ordered.
Therefore let a judgment be entered directing and requiring the lower court to enter an order revoking its judgment theretofore entered in this cause, and to enter a judgment confirming the order of the department of customs in which the protest in question was denied.
Torres, Carson, Trent, and Araullo, JJ., concur.