Pilipinas Shell V Commissioner of Customs 195876 Compress

G.R. No.
195876, December 05, 2016
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Petitioner , v. COMMISSIONER OF

CUSTOMS, Respondent .
FACTS
On 16 April 1996, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8180, otherwise known as the "Downstream Oil
Industry Deregulation Act of 1996" took effect. It provides, among others, for the
reduction of the tariff duty on imported crude oil from ten percent (10%) to three
percent (3%).
Prior to its effectivity, petitioner's importation of 1,979,674.85

1,979,674.85 U.S. barrels of Arab Light
Crude Oil, thru the Ex MT Lanistels,
Lanistels, arrived on 7 April 1996 nine (9) days earlier than the
effectivity of the liberalization provision. Within a period of three days thereafter, or
specifically on 10 April 1996, said shipment was unloaded from the carrying vessels
docked at a wharf owned and operated by petitioner, to its oil tanks located at
Batangas City.
Subsequently, petitioner filed the Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration and
paid the import duty of said shipment in the amount of P11,231,081.00
P11,231,081.00 on 23 May 1996.
More than four (4) years later

l ater or on 1 August 2000, petitioner received a demand
letter dated 27 July 2000 from the Bureau of Customs (BOC), through the District
Collector of Batangas, assessing it to pay the deficiency customs duties in the amount of
P120,162,991.00
P120,162,991.00 due from the aforementioned crude oil importation, representing the
difference between the amount allegedly due (at the th e old rate often percent (10%) or
before the effectivity of R.A. No. 8180) and the actual amount of duties paid by
petitioner (on the rate of 3%).
Petitioner protested the assessment on 14 August 2000, to which the District Collector of
the BOC replied on 4 September 20007 reiterating his demand for the payment of said
deficiency customs duties.
On 11 October 2000, petitioner appealed the 4 September 2000 decision of the District
Collector of the BOC to the respondent and requested for the cancellation of the
assessment for the same customs duties.
However, on 29 October 2001, five years after petitioner

p etitioner paid the allegedly deficient
import duty' it received by telefax from the respondent a demand letter for the payment
of the amount of P936,899,885.90,
P936,899,885.90, representing the dutiable value of its 1996 crude oil
importation which had been allegedly abandoned in favor of the government by
operation of law. Respondent stated that Import Entry No. 683-96 covering the subject
importation had been irregularly filed and accepted beyond the thirty-day (30) period
prescribed by law. Petitioner protested the aforesaid demand letter on 7 November
2001 for lack of factual and legal basis, and on the ground of prescription.
The Ruling of the CTA in Division
In a Decision dated 19 June 2008, the CTA in Division ruled to dismiss the Petition for
Review on CTA for lack of merit and accordingly ordered petitioner to pay the entire
amount of P936,899,883.90 ..
The Ruling of the CTA Former En Banc
In the 13 May 2010 Decision, the CTA Former En Banc affirmed the CTA in Division's ruling
pertaining to the implied abandonment caused by petitioner's failure to file the Import
Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration within the 30-day period, and transfer of
ownership by operation of law to the government of the subject shipment in
accordance with Sections 1801 and 1802, in relation to Section 13.01, of the TCCP, and
with the pronouncements made in the Chevron case.
As regards the issue on the existence of fraud, it should be emphasized that fraud is not
controlling in this case. Even in the absence of fraud, petitioner Shell is still li able for the
payment of the dutiable value by operation of law. The liability of petitioner Shell for the
payment of the dutiable value of its imported crude oil arose from the moment it
appropriated for itself the said importation, which were already a property of the
government by operation of law. Absence of fraud in this case would not exclude
petitioner Shell from the coverage of Sections 1801 and 1802 of the TCCP.
ISSUE
Whether or not the importation is abandoned in favor of the government
RULING
The submissions of the parties to this case bring to fore two timelines and the
consequences of the lapse of the prescribed periods. Petitioner appears to be covered
by Section 1801, in relation to Section 1301.
Tersely put, when an importer after due notice fails to file an Import Entry and Internal
Revenue Declaration within an unextendible period of thirty (30) days from the
discharge of the last package, the imported article is deemed abandoned in favor of
the government.
Discussion
THE IMPORTATION WERE ABANDONED

IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT
The law is clear and explicit. It gives a non-extendible period of 30 days for the importer
to file the entry which we have already ruled pertains to both the IED and IEIRD. Thus
under Section 1801 in relation to Section 1301, when the importer fails to file the entry
within the said period, he "shall be deemed to have renounced all his interests and
property rights" to the importations and these shall be considered impliedly abandoned
in favor of the government:
Unfortunately for petitioner, it was the l aw itself which considered the importation
abandoned when it failed to file the IEIRDs within the allotted time.
From the wording of the amendment, RA 7651 no longer requires that there be other
acts or omissions where an intent to abandon can be inferred. It is enough that the
importer fails to file the required import entries within the reglementary period.
The liquidation of petitioner's imported crude oil shipment became final and conclusive
on 24 May 1997, or exactly upon the lapse of the 1-year prescriptive period from the
date of payment of final duties. As such, any action questioning the propriety of the
entry and settlement of duties pertaining to such shipment initiated beyond said date is
therefore barred by prescription.
Thus, should there be failure on the part of the owner, importer, consignee or interested
party, after due notice of the arrival of its shipment (except in cases of knowledgeable
owners or importers), to file an entry within the non-extendible period of 30 days from the
date of discharge of the last package (shipment) from the vessel, such owner, importer,
consignee or interested party is deemed to have abandoned said shipment in favor of
the government.

Pilipinas Shell V Commissioner of Customs 195876 Compress

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pilipinas Shell V Commissioner of Customs 195876 Compress

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pilipinas Shell V Commissioner of Customs 195876 Compress

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No.

195876, December 05, 2016

PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Petitioner , v. COMMISSIONER OF

Prior to its effectivity, petitioner's importation of 1,979,674.85

More than four (4) years later

However, on 29 October 2001, five years after petitioner

The Ruling of the CTA in Division

Whether or not the importation is abandoned in favor of the government

THE IMPORTATION WERE ABANDONED

You might also like