Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GHJKL v. MNBV
GHJKL v. MNBV
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
667
SERENO, J.:
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45,1
assailing the Decision2 and the Resolution3 of the Court of
Appeals (CA), which nullified the Customs Memorandum
Order (CMO) No. 27-20034 on the tariff classification of
wheat issued by petitioner Commissioner of Customs.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On 7 November 2003, petitioner Commissioner of
Customs issued CMO 27-2003. Under the Memorandum,
for tariff purposes, wheat
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 124-142.
2 Id., at pp. 33-46.
3 Id., at p. 47.
4 Records, pp. 16-18.
668
_______________
5 SUBJECT: Tariff Classification of Wheat
In order to monitor more closely wheat importations and thus prevent
their misclassification, the following are hereby prescribed:
1. For tariff purposes, wheat shall be classified as follows:
1.1 Under HS 1001.9090 (Food Grade) when all the following
elements are present:
1.1.1 the importer/consignee of the imported wheat is a
flour miller as per attached list (Annex ‘A’), which shall form
as integral part of this Order
1.1.2 the wheat importation consists of any of those
listed in Annex ‘A’ according to the country of origin
indicated therein
1.1.3 the wheat importation is entered/unloaded in the
Port of Discharge indicated opposite the name of the flour
miller, as per Annex ‘A’
1.2 Under HS 1001.9010 (Feed Grade)
1.2.1 When any or all of the elements prescribed under
1.1 above is not present.
1.2.2 All other wheat importations by non-flour millers,
i.e., importers/consignees NOT listed in Annex ‘A’
6 SUBJECT: Tariff Classification of Wheat
xxx xxx xxx
2. Any issue arising from this Order shall be resolved in an
appropriate protest or VCRC case.
3. In case of a VCRC case, the following applies:
669
_______________
3.1 The shipment may qualify for Tentative Release
upon payment of the taxes and duties as per declaration and
the posting of cash bond to cover the tariff differential.
3.2 The Tentative Release granted by the VCRC shall,
prior to the release of the shipment from Customs custody,
be subject to representative. For this purpose, the
District/Port Collector concerned shall forward to the Office
of the Commissioner the Tentative Release papers, together
with all pertinent shipping and supporting documents,
including, but not limited to, contract of sale, phytosanitary
certificate and certificate of quality. In the case of Outports,
the required documents shall be faxed to the Office of the
Commissioner of Customs to any of these numbers: 527-
1953/527-4573.
3.3 In resolving the classification issue, the VCRC shall
consider the import/consignee, type/source of wheat and port
of discharge of the wheat importation, as indicated in Annex
‘A’, and require the proofs/evidences (sic), including, but not
limited to, proofs of sale or consumption of said wheat
importation, certificate of quality issued by manufacturing
country and contract of sale.
3.4 Any VCRC decision adverse to the government shall
be subject to automatic review by the Commissioner of
Customs.
7 Rollo, pp. 158-168.
8 Records, p. 12.
670
_______________
9 Rollo, pp. 58-59.
10 Id., at pp. 60-78.
11 Id., at pp. 108-114; penned by Judge Romeo C. De Leon.
671
672
II. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN DECLARING
THAT THE TRIAL COURT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE
CASE.
_______________
15 Tolentino v. Board of Accountancy, 90 Phil. 83 (1951).
16 456 Phil. 145; 408 SCRA 678 (2003).
673
_______________
17 G.R. No. 108524, 10 November 1994, 238 SCRA 63, 69-70.
674
_______________
18 Rollo, p. 112.
19 Office of the Ombudsman v. Ibay, 416 Phil. 659; 364 SCRA 281
(2001).
675
_______________
20 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Michel J. Lhuiller Pawnshop Inc., 453
Phil. 1043; 406 SCRA 178 (2003).
21 220 Phil. 422; 136 SCRA 27 (1985).
676
_______________
22 Philippine Rural Electric Cooperatives Association, Inc. v. The
Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government, 451 Phil. 683;
403 SCRA 558 (2003).
677
Thus, on the one hand, even if other millers excluded
from CMO 27-2003 have imported food grade wheat, the
product would still be declared as feed grade wheat, a
classification subjecting them to 7% tariff. On the other
hand, even if the importers listed under CMO 27-2003 have
imported feed grade wheat, they would only be made to pay
3% tariff, thus depriving the state of the taxes due. The
regulation, therefore, does not become disadvantageous to
respondent only, but even to the state.
It is also not clear how the regulation intends to
“monitor more closely wheat importations and thus prevent
their misclassification.” A careful study of CMO 27-2003
shows that it not only fails to achieve this end, but results
in the opposite. The application of the regulation forecloses
the possibility that other corporations that are excluded
from the list import food grade wheat; at the same time, it
creates an assumption that those who meet the criteria do
not import feed grade wheat. In the first case, importers
are unnecessarily burdened to prove the classification of
their wheat imports; while in the second, the state carries
that burden.
Petitioner Commissioner of Customs also went beyond
his powers when the regulation limited the customs
officer’s duties mandated by Section 1403 of the Tariff and
Customs Law, as amended. The law provides:
678
Failure on the part of the customs officer to comply with his
duties shall subject him to the penalties prescribed under Section
3604 of this Code.”
Petition denied.
_______________
23 Romulo, Mabanta, Buenaventura, Sayoc & De los Angeles v. Home
Development Mutual Fund, 389 Phil. 296; 333 SCRA 777 (2000).
679
——o0o——