G.R. No. 45201; June 30, 1939
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LUIS GASKELL, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Defendant Luis Gaskell, a licensed customs broker doing business as Manila Brokerage, imported merchandise during 1930 through his agent Exequiel Teotico. Gaskell, as holder of the bills of lading, filed customs declarations and presented certified invoices, representing himself as the importer. Customs duties were assessed and paid based on the declared values. Later, the Bureau of Internal Revenue seized documents from the Simplex Trading Company, the endorser of the bills of lading, revealing commercial invoices showing higher values for the same merchandise. Within one year, the Collector of Customs ordered a re-assessment under Section 1283 of the Revised Administrative Code, resulting in a deficiency of P32,595.24 in duties and surcharges of P35,882.79. Luzon Surety Co., Inc. had executed bonds in favor of the government guaranteeing payment of duties by Gaskell. The government sued to recover the amounts. The trial court held Gaskell liable for the deficiency and surcharges and the surety company liable under its bonds up to P9,000. Defendants appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether Luis Gaskell, as holder of the bills of lading, is liable as the importer/consignee for the unpaid customs duties.
2. Whether the re-assessment of customs duties by the Collector of Customs was valid.
3. Whether Luzon Surety Co., Inc. is liable under its bonds.

RULING

1. Yes. Under Section 15 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909, the holder of a bill of lading drawn to order and endorsed by the consignor is deemed the consignee. As the consignee, he is considered the owner for the purpose of collecting duties. Gaskell, as holder of the bills of lading, was the consignee and therefore liable as the importer for the duties, regardless of whether the Simplex Trading Company was the real owner.
2. Yes. The Collector of Customs validly ordered a re-assessment within one year from entry of the merchandise, as authorized by Section 1283 of the Revised Administrative Code. The re-assessment was based on the genuine commercial invoices seized from Simplex Trading Company, which Gaskell failed to rebut. The government properly collected the difference between the duties paid and the correct duties based on the true value.
3. Yes. The terms of the bonds executed by Luzon Surety Co., Inc. expressly bound it, jointly and severally with Gaskell, to pay any unpaid import duties or indemnify the government for damages from violations of customs laws. Upon Gaskell’s failure to pay, the surety’s liability attached under the bonds.

The appealed judgment is affirmed.