DOJ Opinion No. 110, s. 1993

DOJ OPINION NO. 110 , s. 1993 August 16, 1993 Mr. Tagumpay R. Jardiniano Administrator Export Processing Zone Authority 4th Floor, Legaspi Towers 300 Roxas Boulevard, Metro Manila Sir : This refers to your request for opinion on the interpretation of Customs Administrative Order (CAO) No. 9-92 dated September 21, 1992, imposing new rates of customs fees and charges for particular services rendered and documents issued by the Bureau of Customs. It appears that said CAO is now being enforced by Customs Collectors in various zones particularly the fifty (P50.00) pesos fee for each original import entry, export entry and set of boatnotes. You state that several zone enterprises have raised objections on the collection of said fees particularly those with large volumes of imports and exports because they claim that since your agency already collects fees for the same transactions such fees are more than adequate to cover the expenses of the government for said purpose. cdlex It is your view that while CAO No. 9-92 is generally applicable to entities falling within the jurisdictional control and supervision of the Bureau of Customs, its application to importations and exportations of zone enterprises will violate the specific mandate of Section 4(h) and Section 17 (1) of P.D No. 66 which revised R.A. No. 5490 (The EPZA Charter), Section 3 of P.D. 1716 amending P.D. No. 66 and Article 77, Book IV of E.O. No. 226. With regret, we are constrained to decline rendition of opinion on the instant request since the resolution of the issues involved therein would inevitably require an interpretation of an Administrative Order issued by the Bureau of Customs. By established precedents, the Secretary of Justice has consistently refrained from rendering opinion on queries where to do so would mean passing upon the administrative issuances of the office or agency tasked with the enforcement of the law involved, such as the Bureau of Customs in the instant case, over which this Department has no revisory authority (Secretary of Justice Opns. No. 39, s. 1986; No. 1, s. 1983; No. 123, s. 1980; No. 194, s. 1976; No. 208, s. 1961; No. 56, s. 1973; No. 45, s. 1983; No. 9, s. 1987). Besides, it is the Secretary of Finance who is mandated to promulgate rules and regulations to effectively implement the Tariff and Customs law, and therefore, the task of interpreting the same appropriately pertains to the office of said official. The Secretary of Justice also refrains from expressing his views on matters that fall within the primary jurisdiction of another office (Id., No. 141, s. 1988). It is thus suggested that the present matter be addressed at the first instance to the Secretary of Finance and/or the Bureau of Customs. Very truly yours, (SGD.) FRANKLIN M. DRILON Secretary