GR 195876; (December, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 195876 , December 5, 2016
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, PETITIONER, V. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Pilipinas Shell imported crude oil which arrived on April 7, 1996. The shipment was unloaded into its tanks on April 10, 1996. Republic Act No. 8180 , reducing the tariff on imported crude oil from 10% to 3%, took effect on April 16, 1996. Shell filed the requisite import entry and paid duties at the 3% rate on May 23, 1996. In 2000, the Bureau of Customs (BOC) issued a demand for deficiency duties, claiming the old 10% rate applied. Shell protested. In 2001, the Commissioner of Customs issued a new demand for the full dutiable value of the importation, amounting to ₱936,899,885.90, alleging the goods were deemed abandoned under Section 1801 of the Tariff and Customs Code because the import entry was filed beyond the 30-day period from discharge.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether petitioner’s imported crude oil was deemed abandoned in favor of the government for filing the import entry beyond the 30-day period prescribed by the Tariff and Customs Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, reversing the Court of Tax Appeals. The Court held that there was no legal abandonment. The factual findings confirmed the crude oil was unloaded directly into Shell’s own storage tanks in Batangas on April 10, 1996. This act of transferring the goods to a private, secured facility not under BOC control constituted actual and constructive delivery to the importer. Consequently, the goods were no longer in Customs custody, removing them from the regime of customs laws, including the provision on abandonment. Abandonment under Section 1801 requires the goods to remain in Customs custody. Once goods are lawfully delivered to the importer, the 30-day period for filing an entry is irrelevant for purposes of declaring abandonment. The BOC’s belated demand, issued over five years after the payment of duties, was unjustified. The Court emphasized that abandonment is not a penalty for procedural delay but a consequence for goods left in Customs custody. Since custody had ended, the drastic consequence of forfeiture could not apply.