A whistle-blower from the Bureau of Customs (BOC) is seeking a
P1.5-billion reward if the bureau wins its case against Pilipinas Shell
over alleged unpaid excise taxes worth P7.3 billion, official documents
showed.
Geronimo Pinar, who has been a BOC informer for years, is apparently
also the whistle-blower in a previous tax case involving Chevron,
another oil firm.
Sources said Pinar is a retired military man. There are no details on
what he did after serving the military.
Pinar’s name just cropped up when he informed the BOC of Chevron’s
alleged tax liabilities.
It was learned that Pinar was reportedly instrumental in compelling
Chevron to pay the BOC almost P1 billion.
Based on documents, Pinar filed his claim with Batangas Customs
Collector Juan Tan on Jan. 21, 2009.
Then on Jan. 30, 2009, Tan issued a demand letter to Shell to pay up,
echoing Pinar’s allegations that Shell’s “unleaded gasoline (catalytic
cracked gasoline)” was covered by excise taxes.
Shell contested the assessment and said excise taxes apply only to
finished products for local consumption.
It said its imports are raw materials that could not be used directly
as fuel because they do not comply with the Clean Air Act and still
need to be processed.
Also, if used as fuel, they could cause engine trouble, including
knocking (
katok) and fuel line corrosion, eventually resulting in
a dangerous fuel leakage, Shell said.
Shell said it had to blend its CCG imports to come up with finished
products such as premium unleaded gasoline.
At a House hearing, Tan admitted he based his decision to collect
only upon looking at Shell’s import invoices that mentioned “unleaded
gasoline (catalytic cracked gasoline).”
He said he did not bother to ask for laboratory or technical tests to
find out if the imports are indeed raw materials or finished products,
which he said was the task of customs examiners.
In 2003, the energy department, following tests, concluded that CCG
was indeed a raw material that needed further processing to meet legal
standards. This was the basis of Shell’s payment of taxes through the
years until Tan stepped in.
He also insisted that Shell should pay the excise taxes for those
years. Shell is contesting this, arguing it paid in good faith under a
valid government regulation and that Tan’s stand is tantamount to a
retroactive application of rules, which is not allowed under the law.
Shell had said the term “unleaded gasoline” is a generic name used
globally that refers to various kinds of raw materials. This is why it
qualified in parentheses the kind of raw material it was bringing in as
“unleaded gasoline (catalytic cracked gasoline).”
Pending resolution whether the imports are raw materials or not,
Shell is paying the same excise tax twice, upon importation and upon
removal from the refinery of the finished products, resulting in double
taxation.
David Mikael Taclino
Inyu Web Development and Design
Creative Writer