Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 137 views

    Manila Ralroad Company Vs Insular Collector of Customs 52 Phil 950

    Uploaded by

    andrea ibanez
    The Manila Railroad Company appealed a customs ruling that classified dust shields as "manufactures of wool" subject to a 40% tariff. The trial court overruled this, classifying them instead as "detached parts" of rail vehicles subject to a 10% tariff. This decision is affirmed, as dust shields are used as parts of railway vehicles, and the more specific tariff provision for vehicle parts takes precedence over the general wool manufactures provision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Manila Ralroad Company Vs Insular Collector of Customs 52 Phil 950

    Uploaded by

    andrea ibanez
    137 views2 pages
    The Manila Railroad Company appealed a customs ruling that classified dust shields as "manufactures of wool" subject to a 40% tariff. The trial court overruled this, classifying them instead as "detached parts" of rail vehicles subject to a 10% tariff. This decision is affirmed, as dust shields are used as parts of railway vehicles, and the more specific tariff provision for vehicle parts takes precedence over the general wool manufactures provision.

    Original Title

    Manila Ralroad Company vs Insular Collector of Customs 52 Phil 950

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Manila Railroad Company appealed a customs ruling that classified dust shields as "manufactures of wool" subject to a 40% tariff. The trial court overruled this, classifying them instead as "detached parts" of rail vehicles subject to a 10% tariff. This decision is affirmed, as dust shields are used as parts of railway vehicles, and the more specific tariff provision for vehicle parts takes precedence over the general wool manufactures provision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    137 views2 pages

    Manila Ralroad Company Vs Insular Collector of Customs 52 Phil 950

    Uploaded by

    andrea ibanez
    The Manila Railroad Company appealed a customs ruling that classified dust shields as "manufactures of wool" subject to a 40% tariff. The trial court overruled this, classifying them instead as "detached parts" of rail vehicles subject to a 10% tariff. This decision is affirmed, as dust shields are used as parts of railway vehicles, and the more specific tariff provision for vehicle parts takes precedence over the general wool manufactures provision.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    MANILA RALROAD COMPANY, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

    INSULAR COLLECTOR OF
    CUSTOMS, defendant-appellant.

    1929-03-12 | G.R. No. 30264

    DECISION

    MALCOLM, J.:

    The question involved in this appeal is the following: How should dust shields be classified for the purposes of
    the tariff, under paragraph 141 or under paragraph 197 of section 8 of the Tariff Law of 1909? These
    paragraphs placed in parallel columns for purposes of comparison read:

    "141. Manufactures of wool, not otherwise provided for, forty per centum ad valorem."

    "197. Vehicles for use on railways, and detached parts thereof, ten per centum ad valorem."

    Dust shields are manufactured of wool and hair mixed. The component material of chief value is the wool.
    They are used by the Manila Railroad Company on all of its railway wagon. The purpose of the dust shield is
    to cover the axle box in order to protect from dust the oil deposited therein which serves to lubricate the
    bearings of the wheel. "Dust guard," which is the same as "dust shield," is defined in the work Car Builders'
    Cyclopedia of American Practice, 10th ed., 1922, p. 41, as follows: "A thin piece of wood, leather, felt,
    asbestos or other material inserted in the dust guard chamber at the back of a journal box, and fitting closely
    around the dust guard bearing of the axle. Its purpose is to exclude dust and to prevent the escape of oil and
    waste. Sometimes called axle packing or box packing."

    Based on these facts, it was the decision of the Insular Collector of Customs that dust shields should be
    classified as "manufactures of wool, not otherwise provided for." That decision is entitled to our respect. The
    burden is upon the importer to overcome the presumption of a legal collection of duties by proof that their
    exaction was unlawful. The question to be decided is not whether the Collector was wrong but whether the
    importer was right. (Erchardt vs. Schroeder [1984], 155 U. S., 124; Behn, Meyer & Co. vs. Collector of
    Customs [1913], 26 Phil., 627.) On the other hand, His Honor, Judge Simplicio del Rosario, took an opposite
    view, overruled the decision of the Collector of Customs, and held that dust shields should be classified as
    "detached parts" of vehicles for use on railways. This impartial finding is also entitled to our respect. It is the
    general rule in the interpretation of statutes levying taxes or duties not to extend their provisions beyond the
    clear import of the language used. In every case of doubt, such statutes are construed most strongly against
    the Government and in favor of the citizen, because burdens are not to be imposed, nor presumed to be
    imposed, beyond what the statutes expressly and clearly import. (U. S. vs. Wigglesworth [1842], 2 Story, 369;
    Froechlich & Kuttner vs. Collector of Customs [1911], 18 Phil., 461.)

    There are present two fundamental considerations which guide the way out of the legal dilemna. The first is
    by taking into account the purpose of the article and then acknowledging that it is in reality used as a
    detached part of railway vehicles. The second point is that paragraph 141 is a general provision while
    paragraph 197 is a special provision. Where there is in the same statute a particular enactment and also a
    general one which in its most comprehensive sense would include what is embraced in the former, the
    particular, enactment must be operative, and the general language are not within the provisions of the
    particular enactment (25 R. C. L., p. 1010, citing numerous cases).

    We conclude that the trial judge was correct in classifying dust shields under paragraph 197 of section 8 of
    the Tariff Law of 1909, and in refusing to classify them under paragraph 141 of the same section of the law.
    Accordingly, the judgment appealed from will be affirmed in its entirely, without special taxation of costs in
    either instance.

    | Page 1 of 2
    Johnson, Street, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

    | Page 2 of 2

    You might also like