ASTURIAS SUGAR CENTRAL INC.

VS.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
29 SCRA 617
 01 02 03 04
FACTS OF THE CASE ISSUES PROVISION RULING OF THE COURT
 FACTS OF THE CASE
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 of120,000 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 66and 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
 FACTS OF THE CASE
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 its quasi-judicial function as an
incident to its power of regulation
 RULING OF THE COURT
According to the SC “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 the 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 court to give the principle of
controlling weight in particular instances, or as independent rules in
themselves.
 RULING OF THE COURT

These factors are the respect due the governmental agencies

charged with administration, their competence, expertness,
experience, and informed judgement 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.
.
 DOCTRINE

IF THE STATUTE HAS NOT YET BEEN PREVIOUSLY INERPRETED BY THE

SUPREME COURT. THE CONSTRUCTION GOVEN TO IT BY THE
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY MANDATED BY LAW TO IMPLEMENT AND
ENFORCE SAID LAW, SHOULD BE GIVEN GREAT WEIGHT

the Court stressed executive officials are presumed to have familiarized

themselves with all the considerations pertinent to the meaning and purpose of
the law, and to have formed an independent, conscientious and competent
expert opinion thereon. The courts give much weight to contemporaneous
construction because of the respect due the government agency or officials
charged with the implementation of the law, their competence, expertness,
experience and informed judgment, and the fact that they are frequently the
drafters of the law they interpret."