G.R. No. 11426 , December 18, 1916
WALTER E. OLSEN & CO., plaintiff-appellee, vs. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
Walter E. Olsen & Co. imported 87 watches (43 ladies’ and 44 gentlemen’s) from New York. The invoice stated a total value but did not indicate individual values. The customs appraiser fixed the value at $3.50 per ladies’ watch and $6 per gentlemen’s watch, and assessed duty at 25% ad valorem under the Tariff Law of 1909. The importer filed a protest, claiming the watches should be admitted free of duty as products of the United States under Section 12 of the same law. During the proceedings before the Insular Collector of Customs, the importer, by letter dated March 4, 1915, withdrew its claim for free entry and agreed to pay duty based on the invoice price, but implicitly contested the appraised value. The Insular Collector, in his decision dated April 5, 1915, overruled the protest, finding the correct wholesale value to be $3.50 for ladies’ watches and $5 for gentlemen’s watches. The importer appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI). The CFI, after receiving evidence on the watches’ value, reversed the Collector’s decision and ordered a reappraisement at different values ($3.75 for gentlemen’s and $4.75 for ladies’ watches). The Insular Collector appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether an importer may present one question (free entry) to the Collector of Customs in its protest and, on appeal to the Court of First Instance, litigate an entirely different question (the proper appraised value of the merchandise).

RULING:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance and reinstated the decision of the Insular Collector of Customs.

The Court held that the decision of the Collector of Customs is final and conclusive unless the importer, within the prescribed period, files a written protest “setting forth distinctly and specially… the reason for his objections.” The appeal to the Court of First Instance must be based upon the same specific questions presented to and decided by the Collector. In this case, the original protest was based solely on the claim for free entry under Section 12. That claim was expressly withdrawn before the Collector’s decision. No protest was ever formally filed objecting specifically to the appraised value. Therefore, the question of value was never properly presented to the Collector for his decision. Consequently, the Collector’s finding as to value became final, and the Court of First Instance had no jurisdiction to receive evidence or make a new finding on that question. The CFI erred in deciding the case on an issue not raised in the protest.

Note: A dissenting opinion argued that the importer’s letter of March 4, 1915, which was accepted and acted upon by the Insular Collector, effectively amended the original protest and raised the issue of value, which was then decided by the Collector. Therefore, the CFI properly reviewed that issue on appeal.