MINIMUM SPECIFIC IMPORT DUTIES. FOOTWEAR (pa 6403.99.00 NCM). MEYOSP Res. No. 543/95 and 1257/98. Decree No. 2275/94.
In Buenos Aires, on the 16th day of July 2003, the Judges of Chamber "E", Drs. D. Paula Winkler and Catalina García Vizcaíno (Dr. Krause Murguiondo is on leave), met to rule in the case entitled: "CALZADOS CATAMARCA SA", file TFN No. 17.104-A;
Dr. Winkler said:
I.- That on pages 18/22, through its representative, the firm in the heading appeals against resolution no. 1738/02, issued in file 439.915/97, by which, although it was decided to uphold the appeal filed, it was ordered to pay a difference in taxes, plus the incidence of VAT, additional VAT and interest. It states that through decree IC04-104863-C, it documented the import for consumption of a batch of footwear in file 6403.99.00 NCM and that through Resolution of the Industry Section No. 54/96 it was included in a special regime - Industrial Specialization Program - in the terms of decree no. 2641/92. Since the operation was carried out within the framework of the aforementioned program, which was proven by the certificate of tax exemption No. 223-1 from the National Directorate of Industry, the duties were settled and paid - he clarifies - in accordance with the regime of decree No. 2641/92. The clearance was stopped and the customs service is demanding differences in taxes on the grounds that it considers, erroneously, that the operation was included in the regime of res. 543/95. In his opinion, the correct understanding of Resolution ME No. 1257/98 is that differences should not be taxed beyond the 2% already paid for the import in view, since - he points out - paragraph b) of art. 3 of the same is applicable. He cites copious case law that would support his right, offers evidence and requests that, in due time, a judgment be issued upholding the appeal and reversing the appealed resolution, with costs.
That on pages 42/49 the fiscal representation answers the transfer conferred. It says that the tax requirement is notified in the act by which the challenge duly filed by the appellant was resolved and that the liquidation of the DIEM to be paid was carried out by the competent technical departments. It adds that the payment made by the plaintiff, having been for an amount less than that due, does not extinguish the tax obligation. It says that the firm invoked and requested the application of Res. MEYOSP No. 1257/98 and that, at the time of filing the aforementioned challenge, the payment of the DIEM was in force, regulated in accordance with the provisions of Decree "2275/95" (sic) and Res. ME No. 543/95, 226/96, etc. He warns that the plaintiff seems to want the rule that significantly benefits it in operations such as the one in question not to be applied to it. He refers to the principles of equity and equality before the law and cites jurisprudence that, in his opinion, would make it right. He reserves the right to refer to the federal case and requests that, in due course, the plaintiff's claim be rejected, confirming the customs decision, with costs.
II.- That at fs. 50 the opening of the case for evidence takes place. Once this has been done, at fs. 101 the evidentiary period is closed and the files are sent to Chamber "E", which places them for argument at fs. 102. At fs. 107/108 the plaintiff's argument appears and at fs. 106, that of the Treasury. At fs. 111 the files are sent to judgment, so the case is now ready to be resolved.
That from the verification of file ADGA - 1997 - 439.915 it appears that on pages 1/ 4 and back the plaintiff files an objection against the Verification Division's (UTVV) requirement that it liquidate and pay for document n° IC04- 104863-C the minimum specific fees, applying the formula established in MEOP Res. N° 543/95. On pages 11, the container envelope for the dispatch and its supplementary documentation are attached. On pages 23, through Note N° 2900/99, an account is given of a request for consultation made to the enforcement authority in relation to the subject of the reference and possible safeguard measures and the reports produced are attached (see pages 24/28). On pages 30 the value that would make up the letter "P" is required, according to which the same is reported on fs. 33. On fs. 34, the value of A and B are established in relation to the formula to be applied, and on fs. 35 the DIEM that would be owed for the dispatch and the amounts to be paid are liquidated. On fs. 41/44 Resolution No. 1738/02 is issued, appealed in this case.
III.- That first of all it should be noted that the plaintiff does not question the value of P, considered in the calculation of the DIEM formulated by the customs, for which reason the present one is different from others, in process, before this Court. In effect, the former limits itself to questioning the current norm, to insist that, in this case, since it paid the 2% ad valorem duties, there is no credit in favor of the Treasury for the operation documented by means of di n° 97-001-IC04-104.863 C, officialized on 15.11.97/6403.99.00/2. In said office, the merchandise of the pat 72.581,40 NCM was imported with a declared duty of the order of 7,30% and a FOB value of US$ XNUMX, unitary of US$ XNUMX, merchandise originating in China.
IV.- That I have ruled that the DIEM came into force with Annex XII of Decree No. 2275/94, which was amended by Resolutions 304 and 305, both of 1995. "That, according to the motivation of Resolution No. 543/95, said modifications resulted in an increase in the level of tariff protection for companies that carried out their imports under the Industrial Specialization Regime, which implies an undue advantage for them, so the objective that was kept in mind when issuing it was, precisely, to maintain the preference granted to those companies but adapting it to the levels that arose as a consequence of the new and greater protection that meant the issuance of Resolutions No. 304 and 305 of 1995. Said adaptation is seen clearly in the calculation of the formula contained in art. 2 of the cited. Res. No. 543/95.â€
V.- “That Decree No. 998/95 made modifications to No. 2275/94, the latter decree, as indicated above, established the DIEM for the different tariff items, including that corresponding to the merchandise in question, such that the purpose of the first of them was to modify Decree No. 2275/94, as arises from its statement of reasons and the replacement of various annexes of Decree No. 2275/94. On the other hand, in support of what I have been stating, we cannot ignore the circumstance that among the modifications introduced is included what virtually constitutes an extension of the validity of the minimum specific duties and the replacement of Annex XII of Decree No. 2275/94 by Annex IX of Decree No. 998/95, applicable on the date of the events†.
"As a result of the above, it can be concluded that the appellant's reasoning that both regulations were independent of each other is not correct. Therefore, said reasoning leads to the conclusion that resolution No. 543/95 would be, in principle, applicable to the aforementioned offices. Note, in addition, that the mention contained in art. 2 of the cited resolution of decree No. 2275/94 obviously includes the modifications of said decree, in the particular case under examination: those introduced by decree No. 998/95."
VI.- “That, on the other hand and without prejudice to what I have been stating, from the tariff reduction certificates No. (...), attached to the file, it arises that "the import operations of products included in PA covered by specific import duties, will be taxed as a tariff the amount resulting from the application of article 2 of MEYOSP resolution No. 543/95 (...)". Thus, the plaintiff cannot then allege its ignorance (I refer to the ignorance of the text of said certificates) at the time of asserting them in order to obtain the benefits that the regime of decree No. 2641/92, to which it voluntarily submitted, granted it, since this would imply violating the doctrine of the acts themselves. (SCJN, doct. of “Fallos†255:216)".
VII.- "That the plaintiff's grievances regarding the State's failure to comply with the commitment entailed in the approval of the Industrial Specialization Program must also be rejected, since, the applicable regulations having been issued in the exercise of legally conferred powers, this Court is - in principle - prohibited from ruling on their constitutional validity, as provided in article 1164 of the CA. Indeed, the economic policy considerations that gave rise to the issuance of the regulations in question in this case (dec. No. 998/95, resol. No. 304 and 305/95 and 543/95), as well as those related to the evaluation of the distortion of the regime applied to companies covered by the industrial specialization regime due to the issuance of the aforementioned resol. "Nos. 304 and 305/95, cannot be the basis for a ruling invalidating any of them by this Jurisdictional Body, in the terms and as stated above. Likewise, although the plaintiff is right in the sense that it benefited from a special regime such as the Industrial Specialization Program, this circumstance does not mean per se that this Court resolves the issue raised as if it were a bilateral situation, of a synallagmatic nature with the National State, totally separate and independent from the different legal and regulatory norms that are at stake."
"In any case, the grievance regarding a certain violation or inadequacy of the economic-financial equation that the plaintiff may consider to have suffered cannot be aired and resolved before this Court, since it is -in any case- a case of liability, outside the jurisdiction of this instance due to the subject matter. That, even so, and for greater abundance, it cannot be ignored that, as expressed in Recital V of my vote, it is not apparent that in the specific case under examination the level of preferential treatment enjoyed by the plaintiff had been affected by the issuance of Resolution. No. 543/95 and it is not clear what the grievance is in terms of the protection obtained through the industrial specialization regime - now allegedly violated by the tax requirement - if, as is noted in the case and already expressed before, in the very certificates of tax relief issued by the National Directorate of Industry it is clearly and textually stated that "the import operations of products included in tariff items covered by Specific Import Rights, will be taxed as a tariff the amount resulting from the application of Article 2 of Resolution ME and O. and SP No. 543/95, except in those cases mentioned in Article 4 of said rule." (The highlighting of the newly made transcription belongs to me.)
VIII.- “That, notwithstanding, in the cases under examination, it must be specifically taken into account that the Ministry of Economy, through Resolution No. 1257/98, in its article 3, provided that all import operations in which “(…) the imports have been carried out under the protection of Tariff Reduction Certificates issued on the basis of exports actually carried out prior to the validity of MEyOSP Resolution No. 2/543†were exempt from the provisions of article 95 of MEOySP Resolution No. 543/95.â€
"That art. 3 of the aforementioned Res. No. 1257/98 has retroactive scope, which obviously does not impede the mention of its date of entry into force. Furthermore, on the point and in this case, the principle of legal feasibility of retroactivity of acts of general scope is applicable when it favors the administered party (LPA, art. 13 in fine and CASSAGNE, Juan Carlos, "Administrative Law", Buenos Aires, 1985, vol. II, p. 317 et seq.). Indeed, said article provides: "The provisions of article 2 of Resolution MEy O. and SP No. 543/95 shall apply to all import operations that have been classified as any of the following: a) That the imports have been covered by Tariff Reduction Certificates issued and delivered prior to the validity of Resolution MEy O. and SP No. 543/95. b) That the imports have been made under the protection of Tariff Reduction Certificates issued for exports actually made prior to the validity of Resolution MEy O. and SP No. 543/95" (see, among many others, "Alpargatas Calzados SA v. General Directorate of Customs", s/ appeal case, file TFN No. 9397-A, vote of the undersigned, judgment of Chamber "E" of 28.2.00).
IX.- That the hearing, as I said, was made official on 15.11.97/XNUMX/XNUMX.
That at that time, Resolution ME No. 225/97 (Official Gazette of 24.2.97) was in force, which eliminated the DIEM from the tariff items of Chapter 64 of the Harmonized System. This does not prevent the taking into account of new DIEs, which were established within the framework of art. 39 of the Agreement on Safeguards, approved by law No. 24.425, e.g. those provisionally established for the footwear sector (we always refer to this one, given the object of the litigation) through Resolution ME No. 226/97, and the definitive ones established by Res. of the same registry No. 987/97, which closed the investigation opened by the newly appointed first, since such elimination is not incompatible with the establishment of specific duties within the specific investigation formulated and in the terms of the aforementioned Agreement.
That by Res. 987/97 the import in view is not excluded, because although the opening of the investigation is declared appropriate, among others, for pa 6403.99.00, which is the one we are now dealing with, art. 4° of the aforementioned resolution 987/97 excludes imports originating in Hong Kong. Note that, in this case, the certificate of origin n° 971878195 is from the People's Republic of China.
X.- That Res. 987/97, which closes the safeguard investigation opened by the aforementioned Res. 226/97, establishes for the tariff item in question, as a safeguard measure, the duties contemplated in art. 6 according to Annex I. Taking into account the liberalization program and the date of the taxable event (15.11.97), it would then be appropriate to apply a DIEM equivalent to 7,30, which was the one taken into account by customs in its liquidation on fs. 35 of the ant. adm. (note that this import is not within the exclusions of art. 4 of the aforementioned Resolution).
That said argument is possible even though the tax exemption certificate No. 223-1 refers to a different tariff, since I have ruled that the act approving the special regime does not start the application of subsequent regulations that are issued, and this is not the instance where it is possible to analyze whether or not the economic financial equation of the former has been maintained.
That, in effect, the formula DIEME = DIEM - P x (DIE - A + 0,07) was applied, which resulted in the following: For A: 2% + (0,2-2%) x 0,25, since these are export increases in 1997, where P = 11,42 (not controversial in this case) and, therefore, the following resulted: 7,30 - 11,42 x (0,2 - 0,02 + 0,07), and: 7,30 - 2,855 = 4,445, which is the DIE (greater than 2% of the ad valorem paid) required by customs for each imported unit.
XI.- That Resolution No. 1257/98 in its art. 3, provided for the exemption from the provisions of art. 2 of Resolution MMEOYSP No. 543/95 for all import operations in which "(...) the imports have been carried out under the protection of Tariff Reduction Certificates issued for exports actually carried out prior to the validity of Resolution MeyOSP No. 543/95" (emphasis added).
That from the lists on pages 61/63 of the file it appears that there were exports after that date, that is to say on 22.11.95/543/95, when the aforementioned Res. 5/20.11.95 came into force (see art. 1.558.601,85°). Nevertheless, as of 13.476/63/57 the accumulated FOB value was US$ 629.779,19 and 1.716.633,34 pairs (see pages XNUMX). On the other hand, from the information on pages XNUMX it appears that up to the date of official clearance of the shipment in question the CIF value unloaded was US$ XNUMX, so if the total amount to be deducted was XNUMX of the same currency, in my opinion, the customs claim should be voided.
That, moreover, as I have already stated, I have ruled that art. 3 of the aforementioned Res. 1257/98 has retroactive scope, obviously notwithstanding the mention of its date of entry into force. On this point, the principle of the legal feasibility of retroactivity of acts of general scope is applicable when it favors the administered party (LPA, art. 13 in fine and CASSAGNE, Juan Carlos, "Administrative Law", Buenos Aires, 1985, to.II, p. 317 et seq.) and that this is the resolution that should be applied, in my opinion, since the plaintiff was granted certificates of tax relief that are not covered by the subsequent exercise of the safeguard power.
XII.- That, for the reasons stated above, in my opinion, resolution No. 1782/02 should be revoked, with costs. I SO VOTE.
Dr. Catalina García Vizcaíno said:
I) That the facts have been recounted in points I to III of Dr. Winkler's vote.
II) That the time to establish the quantifying elements of the tax obligation in the sub-lite, in the terms of arts. 637 ap. 1) inc. b) and 639 of the CA, is the date of the “registration of the corresponding application for import destination for consumption†, which undoubtedly occurred on 15/11/97.
That on that date, Decree No. 998/95 amending Decree No. 2275/94, as well as MEYOSP Resolutions Nos. 543/95 and 1257/98, were in force. While MEYOSP Resolution 225/97 eliminated specific duties for tariff items in Chapter 64 of the Harmonized System, MEYOSP Resolution 987/97 imposed definitive safeguard measures in the form of minimum specific duties (due to the investigation opened by MEYOSP Res. 226/97) for, among others, tariff item 6403.99.00 referred to in the litigation. It should be noted that the certificate of origin displayed on the container envelope of the shipment in question certifies that the merchandise originates in Quanzhou, China (People's Republic of China). Thus, the exclusions of art. 4/987 are not applicable to the plaintiff. 97° of Res. MEYOSP XNUMX/XNUMX.
That, however, at present the plaintiff enjoyed a temporary tax benefit granted in accordance with the provisions of decree No. 2641/92.
That, therefore, -in my opinion- the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation's statement applies in principle in this regard, in the sense that "the power of the Executive Branch to repeal a previous norm by a subsequent one of equal hierarchy cannot be discussed, without the use of such power constituting any constitutional question, as this Court has decided (Fallos, 259-377, 432; 267-247, among others). Likewise, it must be admitted, as the Court has also resolved (Fallos, 152-268, consid. 11), that taxes are not obligations arising from contracts: their imposition and the compulsory force for their collection are acts of government and public power. However, it cannot be ignored that this last power of the Executive Branch is not unlimited and may be challenged in court, if proceeding in this manner would harm the rights of individuals protected by a previous tax regime, based on the need to grant franchises for a limited period in favor of an industry that was considered to be of national interest" ("S.A. Ford Motor Argentina SA v. National Customs Directorate", 15/9/72; Judgments, 283-363, recital 10).
That the undersigned, when dealing with the issue of the application of the tax law over time (Tax Law, Volume I, pp. 193 et seq., especially p. 197. Depalma. Buenos Aires. 1996 - 1st edition - and 1999 - 2nd edition -), has agreed with Carlos M. Giuliani Fonrouge, who stated that tax exemptions and benefits constitute issues of financial policy as long as they do not affect consummated situations, “but if the State issues a loan attributing tax immunity to the interest, or if it consecrates a benefit for X number of years to those who build buildings, or to whoever establishes a new industry, it cannot then proceed differently, because the legal situation was verified or constituted definitively, and its effects consummated with the acquisition of the title, erection of the building and installation of the industrial plant, respectively†. The speaker added in the cited work that the Supreme Court declared the illegitimacy of a decree that provided that import surcharges on merchandise introduced into the country under the automotive industry promotion regime had to be liquidated and paid on the respective value, aggravating the financial situation of the companies protected by the promotional regulations, because this alteration of the promotional regime "meant ignoring the rights granted to the companies and distorting the purposes that inspired it" ("Ford Motor Argentina SA", dated 20/9/84; Fallos, 306-1401 and its citations).
That although this Court cannot declare the unconstitutionality of the tax regulations in accordance with the provisions of art. 1164 of the CA, this does not prevent the adoption of a conciliatory and harmonious interpretation so that all the regulations governing the case have equal value, understanding that the tariff regime of Resolution MEYOSP 987/97 (for PA 6403.99.00, consisting of US$ per pair US$ 7,30 for the period referred to in the aforementioned DI) constitutes the general regime that does not prevent the validity of temporary tax benefits previously granted by the same National Executive Power. The opposite could imply -in my opinion- tacitly declaring the unconstitutionality of decree No. 2641/92 that conferred the temporary tax benefit in question, since an understanding that is equivalent to disregarding the legal text (in the sub-lite, of decree No. 2641/92) is not admissible, if there is no debate and declaration of unconstitutionality ("Fallos", 285-353, 300-687, 301-958, 307-928 and 2153, among others), since the exegesis of the norm, even for the purpose of adaptation to constitutional principles and guarantees, must be practiced without violating its letter or its spirit ("Fallos", 300-687, 301-958, 307-928).
The Supreme Court has also held that tax regulations must be interpreted taking into account all the provisions that comprise them, in such a way that the purpose of the law is fulfilled in accordance with a reasonable interpretation (Fallos, 254-362, 280-18, 295-755), including the harmonization of its provisions and their connection with other regulations that make up the legal system (Fallos, 271-7). In addition, the High Court has said that legal regulations must always be interpreted avoiding giving them a meaning that puts their provisions in conflict, destroying one for the other, and adopting as true the one that reconciles them and leaves all with value and effect (doctr. of Fallos, 296-372, 297-142, 300-1080).
That in accordance with these interpretative guidelines in the sub-item, MEYOSP Resolution No. 987/97 constitutes the general tariff regime, while Decree No. 2641/92 relating to the "Industrial Specialization Regime intended to facilitate the productive reconversion of the industrial-business complex" has the character of a special regulation that conferred a temporary tax benefit on the appellant.
That art. 5 of decree No. 2641/92 provided that: "The differential tariff treatment provided for in art. 3 of this decree will be the following until December 31, 1996: imports made under this regime will be taxed two percent (2%) as import duty ...". However, from 1/1/97 to 31/12/99, the tariff treatment was adjusted by virtue of the formula contained in art. 5, so that it was no longer the 2% ad valorem to which the plaintiff refers on page 19 of the file.
That, furthermore, art. 14 of the aforementioned decree No. 2641/92 established that: "The Implementing Authority (Secretariat of Industry and Commerce, conf. art. 15) after consultation with the beneficiaries may resolve the total or partial cancellation of any program included within this regime in all cases in which the application of the same distorts or harms the normal development of the export business of the industrial and business sectors adhering to this regime." On the other hand, art. 15 of said decree No. 2641/92 prescribed that: "The Secretariat of Industry and Commerce will be the Implementing Authority of this decree, being expressly empowered to interpret and determine in each case its scope."
That, therefore, it is inferred that the temporary tax benefit granted to the appellant could be rendered ineffective by the Secretariat of Industry and Commerce and this happened in this case according to Certificate 223-1 which only allowed the application of the tariff formula contained therein up to the amount and pairs of shoes that they state. Note that, although this certificate expresses the aforementioned formula, it also highlights that: "Import operations of products included in tariff items subject to Specific Import Duties will be taxed as a tariff the amount resulting from the application of Article 2 of Resolution MEy O. and SP No. 543/95, except in those cases mentioned in Article 4 of said rule."
Furthermore, MEYOSP Resolution No. 543/95 must be considered to be included within the regulations that could totally or partially nullify the tax benefit of this type, in accordance with the powers of the Minister of Economy and Public Works and Services. Furthermore, the Recital of this Resolution refers to the tariff benefits of Decree No. 2641/92 since the imposition of DIEM as instruments of protective tariff policy determined "an excessive advantage for companies under the Industrial Specialization Regime, distorting the economic policy objectives pursued with the modification of the DIEM levels." Consequently, and by virtue of the strong asymmetries in the competitive conditions of the markets for products subject to DIEM, this Resolution established the minimum tariff guidelines for imports of products included within the benefits of Decree No. 2641/92.
That art. 4 of MEYOSP Resolution No. 543/95 does not apply in the case at hand because it concerns merchandise from outside the zone. Therefore (without considering MEYOSP Resolution No. 1257/98, due to the date of the attached certificate of tax relief, which dates from 28/11/96) the tariff resulting from art. 2 of that Resolution 543/95 would apply as a minimum, since this rule stipulates that: "Import operations of products included in NCM tariff items covered by DIEM that are carried out under the Industrial Specialization Regime will be subject to the import duty established in art. 5 of decree No. 2641/92 or the amount resulting from the application of the formula indicated below, at the greater of:
DIEM = {1 -(DIE-A)/100} * DIEM
where
DIEM: special minimum specific import duty.
DIE: extra-zone import duty.
A: import duty established by art. 5 of decree No. 2641/92.
DIEM: minimum specific import duty established by Annex XII of Decree No. 2275/94 in force. Decree No. 2275/94 was amended by Decree 998/95, so in this case the latter must be applied to this item. It should be noted that the "Whereas" of Decree No. 998/95 shows that it amended and replaced some parts of Decree No. 2271/94, without repealing the latter.
That, however, on 1/10/98, MEYOSP Resolution No. 1257/98 (Official Gazette 6/10/98) was issued, which in its article 3 exempted from the provisions of article 2 of MEYOYS.P. Resolution No. 543/95 “all import operations that have fallen into any of the following cases: … b) That the imports have been carried out under the protection of Tariff Reduction Certificates issued for exports actually carried out prior to the validity of MEYOSP Resolution No. 543/95†. This sought to "maintain the tariff preference levels in absolute values, originally granted to companies with approved Industrial Specialization programs achieved by the application of MEYOSP Resolution No. 543/95", in order to "maintain the specific benefits in the absolute values originally agreed" (see Consideration).
III) That the contested resolution expressly admits the application of Article 1 of MEYOSP Resolution 1257/98 to the importation of the aforementioned products.
The appellant maintains that her situation falls within art. 3, subsection b) of the aforementioned Resolution, and therefore was not covered by the provisions of MEYOSP Resolution 543/95, and that, pursuant to art. 5 of Resolution 1257/98, the formula contained therein should not be applied to her either.
That MEYOSP Resolution No. 1257/98 (BO 6/10/98), in its art. 1 replaced art. 2 of ME Resolution No. 543/95, providing that: "Import operations of products included in tariff items of the Common Nomenclature of MERCOSUR (NCM) covered by DIEM that are carried out under the Industrial Specialization Regime, will be subject to the import duty established in article 5 of Decree No. 2641/92 or the amount resulting from the application of the formula indicated below, whichever is greater:
“DIEME = DIEM – P x (DIE – A + 0,07)
“DIEME: Special minimum specific import duty to be applied.
“DIEM: Minimum specific import duty in force.
“DIE: Extra-zone ad-valorem import duty in force on January 1, 1994.
“P: Weighted average price for each NCM tariff item, the weighting to be used being the quantities actually imported at each corresponding price.
“A: Import duty established by art. 5 of Decree No. 2641/92.
“A = 2% for export increases in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996.
“A = 2% + (DIE – 2%) x 0,25 for 1997 export increases.
“A = 2% + (DIE – 2%) x 0,50 for 1998 export increases.
“A = 2% + (DIE – 2%) x 0.75 for 1999 export increases.
"0,07: Difference in statistical rate for companies benefiting from the Industrial Specialization Regime (0,10 - 0,03)."
That art. 3, subsection b) of the aforementioned Resolution 1257/98 exempts from the application of this formula “the imports [that] have been made under the protection of Tariff Reduction Certificates issued due to exports actually made prior to the validity of Resolution ME and O. and SP No. 543/95†.
That from the report on pages 61/63 of the proceedings, the exports taken into account for the issuance of the tariff exemption certificate No. 223-1/96 of 28/11/96 arise. The plaintiff attributed the import clearance in question to that certificate (see pages 54 of the proceedings; copy not observed by customs).
That from the application of certificate No. 223-1 of page 54 of the proceedings it appears that the imputation of DI IC 04 104863 C was made as indicated by the previous speaker in point XI of her vote, to which I agree.
That's how I vote.-
Pursuant to the foregoing vote, IT IS RESOLVED:
Revoke resolution No. 1782/02, with costs.
Register, notify, promptly return and archive the administrative records.
This document is signed by Dr. Winkler and Dr. García Vizcaíno as Dr. Krause Murguiondo is on leave (art. 1162 of the CA).
