CTA Case No. 4378 (Resolution)

... REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY OMEGA SEA TRANSPORT CO., C.T.A. CASE NO. 4378 INC., Petition�n", �- v tin" 1!1 u !!I -� THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS and MED LINE PHILIPPINES, INC., Respcmc:lent s. H- - - - - - - - - - - - - H RESOLUTJ:ON Subm1tted for resolution is respondent's motion to dismiss filed on Septemoet~ 4, 1989 on the gt~ound that t h i s Coln~t has no jut~isdiction ovet~ the subJect-mattet~ of the petition, as well as petitionet~'s opposition t hereto dated September 12, 1989. As gathered from the records and pleadings filed by the partie!!l, the factual antecedents of this case are as follows: On J"anuat"Y 19, 1989, the But"ealt of Customs of the Port of San Fer~nando, La Union~ issued a "War~r..ant of. Se1z�.1re and Detention" of the vessel M/V Star~ Ace, which is allegedly owned by petitioner herein for violation of the pt"ovisions of ~;e Tat"iff And Customs Code, and was docktt 'ted .!a~ "SFLU Seiz1.we Identification No. 2-89,

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 4378 - a- entitled Republic of the Philippines vs. M/V Sta~~ Ace." <Not ice of Appeal with S�.lppo~~t i ng Memor~andum. p. 1, CTA rec. ) On 30, 1989, r~e s pond ent Med Line Philippines, Inc. , filed a Motion for Intervention before the Collecto~~ of Customs of San fernando, La Union, claiming, among other~ things, that the IVJ/V Star~ Ace was actually the vessel M/V Silver~ Med which was allegedly seajacked on September~ 14, 1988, and its name thereafter erased and changed to M/V Star Ace. Notice of Appeal With Suppor~ting IVJemorandum, p.1, CTA r~ec.; see also Or~der~ of Commissioner of Customs p. 14, CTA r~ec. ) On February 1, 1989 Mr. Manuel J. Marcos, assistant collector of customs of the Por~t of San Fer~nando, La Union, issued an order denying the motion of respondent Med Line Philippines, Inc. , to i nt er~vene in the aforesaid seizr.we pr~oceeding in view of the fact that the determination of ownership of a vessel is beyond the scope and jr.wisdiction of the Collector~ of Customs. <see Order, p. 13, CTA t~ec. > On 22, 1989, r~e s pond ent Med Line Philippines, Inc., appealed the or~der~ of the Collector~ of Customs of San Fer~nando, La Union, to the Commissioner of Customs praying that the Or~der~ denying i t s motion for~ inte~~vention be ~~ever~sed and set aside

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 4378 - 3- and insists that it be allowed to intet'vene in said seiZI..lt"e pt�oceeding S. Idn. No. 2 - 89. <See p.3, Petition, CTA rec. > On June 22., 1989, respondent Commissioner of Ct.lS'boms issued an ot'det' t'evet"sing the t"uling of the Collector of Customs, stating therein that Med Line Philippines, Inc., is a duly authot"ized attorney-in-fact and possesses the same interest as that of the principal and thus, dit�ected the Collector" of Customs to continue with the of the subject case and allow respondent Me d Line Ph i 1 i p pi n e s, Inc. , t o in t e t" v en e and present its evidence. <pp. 15- 16, CTA t"ec.) Hence, petitioner" appealed to this Com"t imputing to the Commissioner' gt'ave abuse of disct'etion and/ot" excess of jurisdiction for is s uing the aforesaid order. The issue posed before Us for resolution is whether or not this Com't has jut"isdiction ovet' the subject matter o f the instant appeal. The provision of the law applicable is Section 7(a) of Republic Act No. 1125 which provides as follows: "Sec. 7. J..~,U.:."J2.\=.U,.f.:'_t.A..9.Li.. � The Co�.1rt of Tax Appeals shall exercise excl1..1sive appellate jurisdiction to t�ev i ew by appeal as herein provided. ( 1. ) XXX XXX XXX <2. > Q.f#gj,J?.j.._Q.D...L ��.....�.__________ ..R.f ............... ..............t.tu~. !;_.QJ!!JlL~JlL?..~..P..tHtt~------�-���-�Q.�L _____ ___G~:!.?_t.Q.J!! a. in cases involving liability for" customs duties,

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 4378 - 4- fees or other money charges; seizure, detention or~ r~elease of pr~oper~ty affected; fines, for~feitm~es at~ other~ penalties imposed in relation thereto; or other matters or part of law arising under the Customs Law or part of law administet"ed by the Ba.n~eau of C�.tstoms; and" ( 3. ) XXX XXX XXX It is clear from the above-quoted provision of law that this Court can take cognizance and review by appeal the decision of the Commissioner" of Customs in cases involving: 1. Liab~lity for customs duties, fees ot" other money charges. 2. Seizure, detention or release of property . affected. 3. Fines, forfeitt.n"e ot" other penalties imposed in relation thereto; or 4. Other~ mattet"S ar~ising undet" the Customs law ot" other laws ot" pat"t of law administered by the Bureau of Customs. The law is explicit, this Court can only take cognizance of an appeal if it involves decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in those cases enumerated in the aforesaid provisions of Section 7<2> of Republic Act No. 1125. Petitioner in citing Section 2402 of the Tariff & Customs Code misses the fact that the main contt"oversy is the seizure case and the order appealed from is merely interlocutory and thus unappealable. It is one

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 4378 - 5- of the tenets of om~ t~emedial law that only final judgments or orders are subject to appeal. Section 2402 of the Tat~iff & Customs Code is to be constt~ued in confot~mity with Section 2 of R�.1le 41 of the Rules of We have held that the decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are appealable to this Court are judgments at~ ot~der~s which at~e final in natm~e, and not inter~loc�.ttor~y ot~det~s at~ judgments which do not dispose of the case completely bt..tt leave still something to be done upon the as t~equit~ed by law of the Commissioner of Customs or the Collector of Customs The purpose is to avoid multiplicity of s�.lits. It finds legal sanction in Section 2, Rule 41 of the Rules of Com~t. <Hatib Abdurasid, et al. vs. The Commissioner of Customs and The Collector of Customs of .Jo 1o, <Resolution) CTA Case No. 263, J�.lly 31, 1956 certior�ari denied in L-~11338, Octobet~ 11, 1956.) Mot~eovet~, petitionet~ in the pt~esent case seeks a declaration by that the of the Commissioner of Customs is not only et~t~oneous, but issued with gt~ave abuse of dlsct~etion at~ in excess of seems to be not11ing in the provisions of Section 7 of Rep�.1blic Act No. 1125 that conferti j m~ i s d i ct ion on this Court to enter~tain pet1tions which are substant1ally in the form of actions

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 4378 - 6- for~ decl.::n~ator~y r~elief . <See La Perla Cigar & Cigarette Factory, et al. vs. Secretary of Finance, et al., <Resoll..ltion) CTA Case. No. 1892, May 29, 1968. > WHEREFORE, this to DISMISS petitioner's appeal for being premature. Costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. QLte z on City, Me�t ro Manila, Fe br~uary 19, 1990. Pt~esidin <on leave> ~ CONSTANTE C. ROAQUIN Associate J�.tdge Associate Judge