GR L 3395; (September, 1907) (Digest)
March 4, 2026GR L 3434; (September, 1907) (Digest)
March 4, 2026FACTS
The plaintiff, Struckmann & Co., imported handkerchiefs into the Philippine Islands and declared them as “plain textiles,” paying the corresponding duty under protest on March 14, 1903. The plaintiff contended that the transparent part of the handkerchiefs constituted the hem, for which a surtax was paid, and thus should not be considered part of the textile itself. The Collector of Customs classified the handkerchiefs as “figured cotton textiles, dyed in the piece,” subject to a higher duty under paragraph 120 of the Tariff Revision Law of 1901, instead of paragraph 119 as claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Customs Appeals, which ruled that the handkerchiefs were “more nearly assimilated to plain textiles” than to “figured textiles.” The defendant appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. However, the stenographer’s notebook containing the original hearing’s evidence was lost before transcription, preventing the appeal from being perfected. Subsequently, Act No. 1405 abolished the Court of Customs Appeals and transferred its duties to the Court of First Instance of Manila. Despite attempts to complete the record, including retaking some testimony in the Court of First Instance, the plaintiff was unable to reproduce all the original evidence. The Supreme Court noted that the law requires the entire record to be brought before it on appeal from the Court of Customs Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether or not the appeal should be dismissed due to the incomplete record, specifically the inability to present all the evidence from the original trial upon which the decision of the Court of Customs Appeals was based, as required by law for appeals from the Court of Customs Appeals.
RULING
The appeal is dismissed with costs to the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the law mandates the transmission of the entire record to the Supreme Court in cases appealed from the Court of Customs Appeals. This requirement was not met due to the loss of crucial evidence and the inability of the plaintiff to reproduce it. Consequently, the appeal could not be perfected, leading to its dismissal.
