THE Supreme Court (SC) has junked with finality the bid of the Bureau of Customs (BOC) to collect almost P1 billion from Pilipinas Shell Corp.
The amount represents the total dutiable value of the oil firm’s 1996 crude-oil importation, which was considered as abandoned in favor of the government by operation of law.
In an eight-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., the SC’s Special Third Division denied the BOC’s motion for reconsideration of the High Tribunal’s December 5, 2016, decision. That day the SC barred the agency from collecting the dutiable value of the shipment amounting to P936,899,855.90 on the ground of prescription under Section 1603 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines.
The said provision provides that, “when articles have been entered and passed free of duty or final adjustments of duties made, with subsequent delivery, such entry and passage free of duty or settlements of duties, as well, after the expiration of one year, from the date of the final payment of duties, in the absence of fraud or protest or compliance audit pursuant to the provisions of this Code, be final and conclusive upon all parties, unless the liquidation of the import entry was merely tentative.”
Aside from junking the BOC’s motion for reconsideration, it also denied the agency’s plea to refer the case to the Court en banc.
“Acting on the Omnibus Motion [For Reconsideration and Referral to the Court En banc] dated January 20 filed by public respondent commissioner of customs, the Court denies the same for lack of merit,” the resolution read.
The SC noted that the arguments raised by respondent in its Omnibus Motion are the very same arguments raised in the petition, which have already been evaluated and considered in the assailed 2016 decision.
“Ergo, the Court rejects these arguments on the same grounds discussed in the challenged decision, and denies, as a matter of course, the pending motion,” the SC said.
The Court noted that the BOC’s motion was anchored primarily on the alleged applicability of Chevron Philippines Inc. v Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs (Chevron) to its case.
However, the Court said the Chevron case cannot be applied to Pilipinas Shell’s case considering that the facts and circumstances pertaining to the two cases are different.
According to the Court, the evidence on record established that Chevron committed fraud in its dealings.
“On the other hand, proof that petitioner Pilipinas Shell was just as guilty was clearly wanting. Simply, there was no finding of fraud on the part of petitioner in the case at bar,” the SC said. “Such circumstance is too significant that it renders Chevron indubitably different from and cannot, therefore, serve as the jurisprudential foundation of the case at bar.”
The SC said the BOC failed to present evidence to back its claim that Pilipinas Shell acted in a fraudulent manner.
“At best, the allegation of fraud on the part of Pilipinas Shell is mere conjecture and purely speculative. Settled is the rule that a court cannot rely on speculations, conjectures or guesswork, but must depend upon competent proof and on the basis of the best evidence obtainable under the circumstances,” the High Tribunal said.
In its December 2016 ruling, the Court reversed and set aside the May 13, 2010, ruling issued by the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) former en banc. The CTA ruling ordered Pilipinas Shell to pay the said amount plus an additional legal interest of 6 percent per annum on the total dutiable value.
The Court noted that Pilipinas Shell filed its Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration and paid the remaining customs duties for the shipment on May 23, 1996.
However, it was only on August 2000, or more than four years, when Pilipinas Shell received a demand letter from the district collector of Batangas for the alleged unpaid duties covering the shipment.
It was only after more than five years, or on October 29, 2001, did the oil company received another demand letter from respondent seeking to collect for the entire dutiable value of the same shipment amounting to P936,899,855.90.
“Any action or claim questioning the propriety of the entry and settlement of duties pertaining to such shipment made beyond the one-year prescriptive period from the date of payment of final duties, is barred by prescription,” the Court ruled.