g.r. No.

195876, December 05,

2016
Pilipinas shell petroleum
corporation, petitioner, vs.
commissioner of customs,
Respondent
There is 4 Reporters among us
“Paying tax is not a
punishment. It’s a
responsibility.”

—c h r I s m a t t h e w s
SHHHH
!
 introduction
●Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (the “Company”) was incorporated in the
Philippines and registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on 9
January 1959 primarily to engage in the marketing of petroleum products. On 5
December 2008, the SEC approved the extension of the corporate term of the
Company for another fifty (50) years from 9 January 2009 to 8 January 2059.
●From 2004 to 2009, the Company imported shipments of CCG and LCCG into the
Philippines in accordance with the BIR Authority to Release Imported Goods (ATRIG)
stating that the importation of CCG and LCCG is not subject to excise tax.
●The Company appealed before the Commissioner of Customs (COC). In the
meantime, the Director of the DOE-Oil Industry Management Bureau issued a letter
reiterating the earlier DOE finding that CCG and LCCG imports were raw materials or
blending components in the production or processing of gasoline in its finished form
 introduction

●The Supreme Court consolidated the said petitions and the parties
have filed their respective Comments
●Management believes that provision should not be recognized
since it is the Company’s assessment that liability arising is not
probable because the Company’s factual and legal positions are
strong.
 Facts
● April 7, 1996- Republic Act No. 8180 “Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act of
1996”
●August 1, 2000- Deficiency customs duties
●October 11, 2000- appelead the decision and requested for cancellation of custome
duties
●October 29, 2001- allegedly abandoned in favor of the government by operation of
law
●December 28, 2001- letter declared that failed to answer to the demand letter and
demanded to pay
●April 11, 2002- civil case of sum of money
●May 27, 2002- CTA a Petition for Review
●CTA in Division denied and respondent’s motion for reconsideration was denied
 issue
● Whether or not will the claim of the COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
prosper?
● What should have caused the failure to file an entry to abandon the imported
article?
●Is the importer liable for negligence?
●Any manifestation of fraud? The BOC accused Petitioner of Fraud based on
a Memorandum that was not presented in evidence. Will the BOC accusation
succeed?
 ruling
● Unless one of the parties publicly put the Memorandum in evidence and the
court a quo accepted it, it cannot be regarded one of the legal and factual
reasons for deciding the disagreement before it.

● It would also be an error for the CTA in Division to take judicial notice of
the subject Memorandum being merely a part of the BOC Records
submitted before the court a quo, without the same being identified by a
witness, offered in, and admitted as evidence, effectively depriving
petitioner of the opportunity to object thereto. As a result, the CTA in
Division should not have considered the subject Memorandum in its
decision.
conclusion
● Conclusion,
Thank
you! Group 9
Arcilla, Maria Cristina

Lising, Nica Joy

Tumulak, Nicole

Marin, Erickson