CTA Case No. 1900 (Resolution)

y r�'c LI .h< ~T J lJ.i~.',.~!..�rhv .TrI"l\�lir.Jb . , l~ � , ;C.)e t'l t�loner, - versus - v..., � , ' � .-�1 � C.hC, �s'.-!J' lri�T, O � l"' 9 00 or�--..-- : , r L- c JU- �; a s u~ .!:' �.J__,~ .T.:.1:!J~'~ ' .~ , om- missioner of Customs, Re spond ent . x- - - - - - - - ~ - - - -x RES 0 1 UTI 0 N This is in connection with the motion to ti s - miss fi l ed b y responeent on December 13, 1967 seek- in g the ~ is ~ issal o~ the oet ition f or review for lac :.-: o~ juri sdi ction anu for lac k o.:.~ cause of action . =:t ap pears that petitioner imported from al) road 300 alu mi num wire clot h o pal , 100 linea l ft . reel , �,,,::-lich arrived at tl"H3 Port of Cebu on January 18 , 1966 . Tl1e shioment was a nnra isef and was assessed ~ ~~ customs duti::::s in the sum of ~7,56~ . 00 , v:harfag e fee in the sum of ~4 . 00 and advance sales t a x in the sum of ~-2 , 1L:-o . oo , or a tota l amount of 1 9 , 704. oo , which it a llegedly paid unGer protes t . ( See Offic i al ce i:.J t I'JO . 7949262 c:a ted January l 't ' 1966 . ) Petitioner claims that of the sum of ~-9 ' 704 . 00 which was pa i u by it on January 17, -'196 o~� , it mad e an overpaymant of ?.5 , 755 . 0C , oi.' whi ch t-5 , 292.0U re - pr --seD� s the allegad ove r _')ayuen t o.L' c.1�. cus tor�;s du t i ?s and ~-463 . 00. tho ~')-"~c ess ~Jaynent o.i the advance sales ta::.

- li:S;3:~�LL'TION - -C'l'1~ CA3E 1�-.0 . 1900 2 In a. cL2ciston c'a ted :~- y 22 , 1967 , the Collecto r o: Customs of Cebu discissed th: prot2st, which 1.-vas receive6 by petitioner on June 2 , 1967 . On June 6 , 1967 , petitioner appealed the 6ecision o: the Col- lector oi Customs to tne Commissioner of Customs . :L:o decision has as yet been rendered by the Comni s - sioner of Customs . On Dece;.tJ.ber 11 , 1967 , petitioner filed instant petition for review . 3esponCent con~ends t since no dec is ion has o s yet cee'.1 rendered !Jy ti1e Commiss j_oner of Customs, the filin :, a:' the petition for reviev.r is ~)remature, invoking in s u _)port of his s ta.nd the dec is ions in -the cases of S;;HJ;_J::.Lguita Shoe~- 3lipper Factory vs . Commissioner of Customs , 102 Phil. 850; Rufino Lopez -,:r_c_�. Court of Tax A' apea_�r s , �1� 0v" �lo�Dl� ~�, . u0 r):::o ; ancJ Jose .u . Gumogda vs . ~he Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. c.. �"! �1 ~��i. � .L � ( On the other ha1e , petitioner contends that there i.s a CD_Use a~� action a.n~ it can l)roceed with the nresent suit within the ueriod of two years from the date of the paymen t of ~he duti~s and taxes with- out '"Jaiting for the decision of the Commissioner of Cqstoms and invoked the decision in the case of P. J. Ltd. vs . Saturnino David , 92 Phil. 9~5 . The claim for refund conststs of two different

R.32 OLG'ri 01: - CTA CA33 ~�~0 . 1900 3 chc'lrges, namely, overpaid ctJ.stoms duties in the ar!oLmt of �;~5 , 292 . 00 an, i:l.Civa.nc~,; sa13s tax in the amount o! i463 . 00 . ~�Jith reSl)e c t to t~le protest anc cL1.irr_ for r efund of t~e allege" overpa i e cus~oms ~utics i n t he at'10Ut1 . . ?g? ;;overned by S �.:.�..,l-.~.'~. ;... ' o�" : -- l_, .l :~;. ) ' '- '-;' ,;._ � \,....�.,.~, ' l�J_v i~ the ,_)ro�.ri.sions o: the Ta r iff anc Custorr.s Code in re - . 1~tion of ..�.c .... �-� ,, to 3ection ll Re)~blic 1125. S.'he L )roce~ure in assailin; ~he erroneouf or ille~al col- lccti.o�1 ~:(' S'J..::tor:s duties l :.:;c ���il-e a :,)retest ".-Jith t he Colle c tor of Custons . .2he :�. �.:;cision o~� tL; Co1- lector o: Custo~s on the Jrotest is ctppealable to t he Commissioner o~ Customs within fiFteen d2ys ~rom the date o: receirt c~ the dec .sicn o; the Collector (cection ?313 , Tariff~ Cus~~ms Code) . ~ron the date or re cei)t of the eecision of the Com- mission3r c:�.' Custons , th-s )rotesta�1t, if ad versely affected, may ap)eal t o the Court of Tax Ap)eals . ( ::. ac tions 7 ~::-t~10 11 , Re)Ll,~lic _..c t Lo . 1125 ; see also Se c . 24C2 , Tar i ff and Custoos Code. ) ~he fai l ur e to obse~ve the proce ure outlined above i n bringing pro - t est ae customs case s before th i s Co ur t is fatal t o t he a ppea l. The re be i ng no de c i si on render ed o n ap- pe::1 l by the Commi ssi oner of Customs , t he r e is , the re- for e , no de c ision with i n the cont emp l atio n of 3e ct i ons 7 a n6. 11 of 11epub lic Act 1~0 . 112Y ltJhi c h may be ap -

H:::-20LUTION - C7A CASE 1m . 1900 4 pealed to this Court . Consequently , the petition for review has been prematurely filed . (;.:.ugar Pro- ducer ' s Coo~erative Marketing Association , Inc ., vs . Commissioner of Customs , C. T.A. Cases Nos . 858 and 859, Oct . 27 , 1960 ; Chan ::ian vs. C. T. A., G. R. No . L- 12184, Lay 29 , 1959 , 57 O.G . 8661; see a.lso Negros Navigation Co ., :nc . vs . Comm . of Customs, r,_�;� � '~=�' � �1�.-~0 . L- 1� 0 619 ' Hay 31 , 1963; Sarnpaguita Shoe and u ;:nipper :F'ac tory vs . Commissioner of Customs , supra; rtufino Lopez vs . Court of Tax Appeals , su~ra . ) :,fith respect to the claim for refund of I~463 . 00 as alleged overpaid advance sales tax , which is an internal revenue tax, the same is governed by Section 306 of the National Internal Revenue Code~ and not by the Tariff and Customs Code. Under said section, a ~ritten claim for refund of the alleged overpay- ment must be fil2d ,,.Jith the Cor!Imissioner �:Jf Internal Revenue within two years from the date of payment , and if the latter fails to act on the claim , the tax- payer can bring a judicial action (appeal to this Court) vJithout vJaiting for the decision of the Com- missioner , also within two years from the date of payment . 11'here a protest or claim for refund is filed with the Collector of Customs , who is a deputy of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in the collection of internal revenue taxes on imported gooc s , the same

J.ESOLUTIOi� - C'l)~l. CAS.2; I\L . 1900 5 is a substantial c o mplia~ce with the reauirement o f Cection 306 of the ~avenue Code. (Jictorias hilling Co . , Inc . vs . Corm . of Int . Rev . , C . ~ . A . Case ~o . 68 :/ :;, Oc t . 2vn , .-1,9..ocO �, 0__, oce - 0._,:.�La .~,.,X~) or-e� '...-., 'orpora l-L'.-""Ol1 vs. Comm . oi' 2:nt . R_ e.v . , c � 1 �.:'... � cas e 11,o . 6~/. ~) , April 18 , 1962. ) :io1;:ever , in actions for recovery of internal reven~e taxes allegedly er~oneously or illegally paid , the proper party against i}Jhom the act ion must be filed is tl1:; Commissioner of Internal ~-tevenue am3 not the Commissioner of Customs . In this case , the Com- missioner of L1ternal J.evenue is not included as a the _t)eti tion for review is hereby dismissed . ~o ,rocouncement as to costs. / / 0'"'O o�"-'l�L'"l;..�..::J>.:..\7jJ�_") Quezon City, l~rch 7 , 1963 . ~~-) Presiding Judge ~-!3 COEClJR: 4r~~~tr t:/ Assocla te Juage (._ ~-~ _1�-d :m~ L . 11V~~1~ :3rJ�,~ Associate Judge