BIR Ruling [DA-483-06]

August 9, 2006 BIR RULING [DA-483-06] Sec. 148 (a); 107 (A); BIR Ruling No. 128-98 BVM Sanchez & Son Customs Broker and Freight Forwarding Co., Inc. Suite 207 O. Ledesma Building Gen. Luna corner Real Street Intramuros, Manila Attention: Ms. Bernardina M. Sanchez Gentlemen : This refers to your letter dated May 3, 2006 requesting in behalf of your client, Shell Chemical Philippines, Inc. (SCPI for brevity), a ruling exempting its importation of "Shellsol BLS" from the payment of excise tax imposed under Section 148(a) of the Tax Code of 1997, as amended. STIHaE It is represented that the article "Shellsol BLS" is similar to total finales "Banole" which was imported by SCPI in the late 1990's and manufactured by the Royal Dutch Shell Group of Companies; that like "Banole", "Shellsol BLS" will be used as a carrier or medium of an active ingredient to prevent the spread of a disease in banana leaves known as Segatoka; that the product being oil based, will stick to the banana leaves ensuring that the active ingredient of the pesticide will not be washed away; that "Shellsol BLS" is not used in any application related to fuel or lubricant; and that the Chief of BIR Laboratory Section, Ms. Cleotilde M. Jose, issued a Memorandum dated July 19, 2006, stating as follows: "Shellsol BLS is a trademark for a series of hydrocarbon solvents composed of a mixture of paraffinic, naphthenic and aromatic hydrocarbons. Subject hydrocarbon solvent is not among the articles subject to excise tax. " (Emphasis supplied) Based on the foregoing, this Office hereby holds that the importation by SCPI of "Shellsol BLS" is not subject to excise tax imposed under Section 148(a) of the Tax Code of 1997, as amended. However, said importation is subject to the value-added tax imposed under Section 107(A) of the Tax Code of 1997, as amended. (BIR Ruling No. 128-98 dated September 10, 1998) This ruling is being issued on the basis of the foregoing facts as represented. However, if upon investigation, it will be disclosed that the facts are different, then this ruling shall be considered null and void. Very truly yours, Commissioner of Internal Revenue By: (SGD.) JAMES H. ROLDAN Assistant Commissioner Legal Service