Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs GRNo.

L-19337,
September 30, 1969
Doctrine: If a statute has not yet been previously interpreted by the Supreme Court, the construction given
to it by the administrative agency mandated by law to implement and enforce said law, should be given
great weight.

FACTS: Asturias Sugar Central, Inc. was engaged in the production and milling of centrifugal sugar for
export, the produced sugar was being placed in container known as jute bag which were not locally made.
Thus, in 1957, it made two importations of jute bags. There were 44,800 jute bags in the first importation,
and 75,200 in the second importation. These importations were made free of customs duties and special
import tax upon the petitioner’s filing of Re-exportation and Special Import Tax Bond conditioned upon the
exportation of jute bags within one year from date of importation. The first was imported on January 8, 1957
and the second on February 8, 1957. But it only exported 33,647 out of 120,000 jute bags that it imported.
The remaining 86,353 jute bags were exported after the expiration of the one-year period but within three
years from their importation contrary to the Administrative Order 66 and 389 issued by the Bureau of
Customs. Due to the petitioner’s failure to show proof of the exportation of the balance of 86,353 jute bags
within one year from their importation, the collector of Customs of Iloilo required it to pay the amount of
28,629.42 representing the customs duties and special import tax due thereon, which amount paid under
protest. The petitioner demanded the refund of the amount it had paid, on the ground that its request for
extension of the period of one year was filed on time, and that its failure to export the jute bags within the
required one-year period was due to delay in the arrival of the vessel on which they were to be loaded and
to the picketing of the Central railroad line. Alternatively, it asked for refund of the same amount in the form
of a draw back under section 106(b) in relation to section 105(x) of the Tariff and Custom Code. On June
21, 1960, the collector of Customs of Iloilo, after hearing, rendered judgment denying the claim for refund.
Because of this judgment the petitioner appealed to the Commissioner of Customs who upheld the decision
of the Collector. Eventually, a petition for review was filed with the Court of Tax Appeals which affirmed the
decision of the Commissioner of Customs.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Bureau of Customs as an administrative body is allowed to resolve questions of
law in the exercise of it quasi-judicial function as an incident to its power of regulation.

HELD: According to the Supreme Court “Considering that the Bureau of Customs is the office charged with
implementing and enforcing the provisions of our Tariff and Customs Code, the construction placed by it
thereon should be given controlling weight. In applying the doctrine or principle of respect for administrative
or practical construction, the courts often refer to several factors which may be regarded as bases of the
principle, as factors leading the courts to give the principle controlling weight in particular instances, or as
independent rules in themselves. These factors are the respect due the governmental agencies charged
with administration, their competence, expertness, experience, and informed judgment and the fact that
they frequently are the drafters of the law they interpret; that the agency is the one on which the legislature
must rely to advise it as to the practical working out of the statute, and practical application of the statute
presents the agency with unique opportunity and experiences, or improvements in the statute; x x x.” Hence,
the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.