G.R. No. 37850 ; September 6, 1933
MAN SHUNG LOONG CO., ET AL., petitioners, vs. MELECIO FABROS, Collector of Customs of the port of Jolo, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners imported sugar in 1930-1931 through the Jolo customhouse. The collector of customs made a tentative liquidation of duties, as the exact duties could not be determined without a polarization test by the Bureau of Science. Petitioners deposited the estimated amount and the sugar was delivered. After the test, a final liquidation showed petitioners owed an additional P8,656.20 in duties, which they refused to pay, arguing the first liquidation was final and the one-year prescriptive period under section 1287 of the Administrative Code had lapsed. In 1932, petitioners imported more merchandise. The collector refused immediate delivery unless the prior debt was paid. After a court agreement, petitioners deposited 130% of estimated duties, and the goods were delivered under tentative liquidation. A final liquidation later showed their deposits exceeded the duties due. The collector issued warrants for the excess but, with authorization from the Insular Collector of Customs, cancelled them and applied the amount to the petitioners’ unpaid debt of P8,656.20. Petitioners filed for mandamus to compel delivery of the warrants.

ISSUE

1. Whether the initial liquidation of duties for the 1930-1931 sugar imports was tentative or final.
2. Whether the government could legally offset the petitioners’ unpaid import duties against the refundable excess deposits from later imports.
3. Whether mandamus is the proper remedy.

RULING

1. The initial liquidation was tentative, not final. It was made pending the polarization test necessary to determine the correct duties. Thus, the one-year prescriptive period in section 1287 did not apply, and the government’s claim for the deficiency remained valid.
2. The government could legally effect the offset. The case of Compañia General de Tabacos vs. French and Unson is distinguishable, as it involved offsetting an unliquidated claim for damages. Here, the government’s claim was for a liquidated sum of unpaid import duties established by final liquidation.
3. Mandamus is not the proper remedy. Petitioners’ exclusive recourse was to pay under protest and appeal through the administrative and judicial channels provided under the Administrative Code (Sections 1370, 1371, 1379, 1380, 1383, 1384, and 1385). Their failure to do so barred the mandamus action.
The petition is denied. The court noted that if the excess deposits (P10,939.24) exceeded the debt (P8,656.20), the balance should be refunded, but as respondents were disposed to do so, no ruling was necessary on that point.

AI Generated by Armztrong.