Facts:
Asturias
Sugar Central, Inc. is engaged in the production and milling of
centrifugal sugar, the sugar so produced being placed in containers known
as jute bags. In 1957, It made two
importations of jute bags, free from customs duties and special import tax upon
the Petitioner’s filing of re-exportation and special import tax bond,
conditioned upon the exportation of the jute bags within one year from the date
of importation.
However,
out of the 44,800 jute bags imported first, only 8,647 were exported and only
25,000 were exported out of the 75,200 jute bags imported on the second
shipment. In other words, of the total number of imported jute bags only 33,647
bags were exported within one year after their importation. The remaining
86,353 bags were exported after the expiration of the one-year period but
within three years from their importation.
Petitioner
requested the Commissioner of Customs for a week's extension of Re-exportation
and Special Import Tax Bond no. 6 which was to expire the following day, citing
reasons for its failure to export the remaining jute bags within the period of
one year. However, this request was
denied by the Commissioner.
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 Petitioner
was required to pay the amount of p28,629.42 representing the customs duties
and special import tax due thereon, which the petitioner paid under
protest and later on demanded the refund of the amount it had paid.
Issues:
a.)
Whether or not the Commissioner of Customs is vested with discretion to extend
the period of one year provided for in section 23 of the Philippine Tariff Act
of 1909.
b.)
Whether or not interpretation or construction of an ambiguous or uncertain
statute by the Executive Department or other Administrative Agencies be given
consideration? In the case at bar, the Bureau
of Customs.
Held:
a.)
Section 23 of the Philippine Tariff Act Of 1909 and the superseding sec. 105(x)
of the Tariff and Customs Code, while fixing at one year the period within
which the containers therein mentioned must be exported, are silent as to
whether the said period may be extended. By reason of this silence, the Bureau
of Customs Issued Administrative Orders 389 and 66 to eliminate confusion and
provide a guide as to how it shall apply the law, and, more specifically, to
make officially known its policy to consider the one-year period mentioned in
the law as non-extendible.
b.)
Considering that the statutory provisions in question (Section 23 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909
and Sec. 105(x) of the Tariff and Customs Code) have not been the
subject of previous judicial interpretation, then the application of the
doctrine of "judicial respect for administrative construction (in the case at bar the Bureau
of Customs issued Administrative Orders 389 and 66 to eliminate confusion and
provide a guide as to how it shall apply the law, and, more specifically, to
make officially known its policy to consider the one-year period mentioned in
the law as non-extendible., " would, initially, be in order.
Only where the court of last resort has not
previously interpreted the statute is the rule applicable that courts will give
consideration to construction by administrative or executive departments of the
state.
The formal or informal interpretation or practical
construction of an ambiguous or uncertain statute or law by the executive
department or other agency charged with its administration or enforcement is
entitled to consideration and the highest respect from the courts, and must be accorded appropriate
weight in determining the meaning of the law, especially when the
construction or interpretation is long continued and uniform or is
contemporaneous with the first workings of the statute, or when the enactment
of the statute was suggested by such agency.
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 for discovering deficiencies, inaccuracies,
or improvements in the statute.
