Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33.) Commissioner of Customs Vs CTA

    Uploaded by

    Jemson Ivan Walcien
    368 views1 page
    (1) The Commissioner of Customs appealed a Court of Tax Appeals decision ordering a refund of berthing fees paid under protest by Litonjua Shipping Company for vessels that berthed at privately owned ports. (2) The Court of Tax Appeals ruled that under amendments to Section 2901 of the Tariff and Customs Code, only vessels berthing at national ports are liable for berthing fees. (3) The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Tax Appeals decision, finding that the amendment adding "national" to port was intended to change the law, not merely affirm existing practice, and therefore privately owned ports are not subject to berthing fees.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    33.) Commissioner of Customs vs CTA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    (1) The Commissioner of Customs appealed a Court of Tax Appeals decision ordering a refund of berthing fees paid under protest by Litonjua Shipping Company for vessels that berthed at privately owned ports. (2) The Court of Tax Appeals ruled that under amendments to Section 2901 of the Tariff and Customs Code, only vessels berthing at national ports are liable for berthing fees. (3) The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Tax Appeals decision, finding that the amendment adding "national" to port was intended to change the law, not merely affirm existing practice, and therefore privately owned ports are not subject to berthing fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    368 views1 page

    33.) Commissioner of Customs Vs CTA

    Uploaded by

    Jemson Ivan Walcien
    (1) The Commissioner of Customs appealed a Court of Tax Appeals decision ordering a refund of berthing fees paid under protest by Litonjua Shipping Company for vessels that berthed at privately owned ports. (2) The Court of Tax Appeals ruled that under amendments to Section 2901 of the Tariff and Customs Code, only vessels berthing at national ports are liable for berthing fees. (3) The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Tax Appeals decision, finding that the amendment adding "national" to port was intended to change the law, not merely affirm existing practice, and therefore privately owned ports are not subject to berthing fees.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs.

    COURT OF TAX APPEALS and LITONJUA SHIPPING COMPANY represented by


    Granexport Corporation as sub-agent

    G.R. Nos. 48886-88 July 21, 1993

    FACTS:

    On various date, berthing facilities of the Iligan Bay Express Corporation at Kiwalan, Iligan City
    were used by the vessels engaged in foreign trade and were assessed berthing fees by the
    Collector of Customs which were paid by private respondent under protest.

    Private respondent filed cases before the Bureau of Customs for refund of the berthing fees
    paid under protest. The Collector of Customs denied the protest, prompting private respondent
    to appeal to the Commissioner of Customs who, however, affirmed the decision of the Collector
    of Customs.

    Private respondent then resorted to the Court of Tax Appeals. Consolidating the protests, the
    tax court, thereafter rendered a decision on July 28, 1978.

    The decisions appealed from are hereby reversed and respondent Commissioner of Customs is
    ordered to refund to petitioner the amount of P40,551.00.

    ISSUE:

    Whether a vessel engaged in foreign trade, which berths at a privately owned wharf or pier, is
    liable to the payment of the berthing charge under Section 2901 of the Tariff and Customs
    Code, which, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 34.

    HELD:

    It will be seen that the word "national" before the word "port" is inserted in the amendment. The
    change in phraseology by amendment of a provision of law indicates a legislative intent to
    change the meaning of the provision from that it originally had. The insertion of the word
    "national" before the word "port" is a clear indication of the legislative intent to change the
    meaning of Section 2901 from what it originally meant, and not a mere surplusage as contended
    by petitioner, in the sense that the change "merely affirms what customs authorities had been
    observing long before the law was amended.” It is the duty of this Court to give meaning to the
    amendment. It is, therefore, our considered opinion that under Section 2901 of the Tariff and
    Customs Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 34, only vessels berthing at national
    ports are liable for berthing fees.

    The subject vessels, not having berthed at a national port but at the Port of Kiwalan, which was
    constructed, operated, and continues to be maintained by private respondent Iligan Express
    Corporation, are not subject to berthing charges, and petitioner should refund the berthing fees
    paid private respondent.

    You might also like