TE CHIN BOO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

In the present case a protest was  presented against the appraisement made by the Collector of Customs  of certain goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the  Philippine Islands by the plaintiff and appellee.  The protest was disallowed and an appeal  was taken to the  Court of First Instance,  where  the judge  proceeded  to hear  testimony concerning the wholesale value of said merchandise, and thereafter rendered  a  judgment in which he reversed the findings of the Collector of Customs and ordered the record returned, with direction to the Collector of Customs to fix the value  of said merchandise in accordance with the declarations of the protestant.

From that judgment the Collector of Customs appealed to this court.

The simple question presented is whether or not the Collector of Customs is authorized to assess or appraise the true value  of imported merchandise.  In the present case there was  no effort made to show that the  Collector of Customs had proceeded upon a wrong principle and contrary to law. The proof tended to show simply that the value fixed by the Collector of Customs was not the real value of the merchandise.  We have frequently  decided that when the value of merchandise is  fixed by  the department of customs or the  appraisers  thereof and confirmed  by the Insular Collector of Customs, such valuation is conclusive, in the  absence of an affirmative showing that the appraiser, in fixing the value, proceeded upon a wrong principle and contrary to law.  In reaching that conclusion we have followed  the precedents established by the Supreme Court of the United States.  (Lim Quim vs.  Collector of  Customs, 23 Phil. Rep., 509; Lambert & Co. vs. Collector of Customs, 25 Phil. Rep., 159; Behn, Meyer & Co. vs. Collector of Customs, 26 Phil. Rep., 647; Kuenzle & Streiff vs. Collector of Customs, 31 Phil. Rep., 465; Robertson vs. Frank Brothers Co., 132 U. S., 17; Auffmordt vs. Hedden, 137  U. S., 310; Passavant  vs. United States, 148 U. S.,  214; Muser vs. Magone, 155 U. S., 240.)

In view of the facts presented by the appellant, and the foregoing decisions, we are of the opinion and so hold that the judgment of the Court of First Instance should  be and is hereby revoked.  Let a judgment be  entered in accordance with that conclusion, and, without any finding as to costs, it is  so ordered.

Arellano,  C. J., Torres, Carson, and Araullo, JJ., concur.