COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. MINDANAO I GEOTHERMAL PARTNERSHIP

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY EN BANC 7107 ISLANDS SHIPPING C.T.A. EB NO. 912 CORPORATION, (C.T.A. Case No. 7955) Petitioner, Present: - versus - DEL ROSARIO, PJ CASTANEDA, JR., BAUTISTA, UY, CASANOVA, FASON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, COTANGCO-MANALASTAS,and RINGPIS-LIBAN, JJ. Promulgated: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, Respondent. . x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x RESOLUTION Fabon-Victorino, J.: Before the Court is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Decision promulgated on April 1, 2014, the dispositive portion of which reads: WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review filed on July 6, 2012, by petitioner 7107 Islands Shipping Corporation is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Decision and Resolution dated _; March 6, 2012 and June 6, 2012, are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

RESOLUTION C. T.A. EB NO. 91 2 Page 2 of4 Petitioner assails the foregoing Decision on the following grounds: I. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS ILLEGAL IMPORTATION AT THE TIME THE VESSEL SUBJECT OF THIS CASE ENTERED PHILIPPINE TERRITORY. II. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT PETITIONER COMMITTED FRAUD, WARRANTING THE FORFEITURE OF THE VESSEL SUBJECT OF THIS CASE. By way of Comment filed on July 25, 2014, respondent counters that the instant motion is merely a rehash of the arguments that petitioner raised in its Petition for Review which respondent already refuted in its Comment and Memorandum filed before the Court. Significantly, the same arguments had been passed upon and resolved by the Court in the assailed Decision. Nonetheless, respondent submits that petitioner failed to prove any of the grounds to justify the grant of her Motion for Reconsideration. Respondent posits that there was already importation of M/V Coco Explorer 2 when it arrived in the Philippines on September 4, 2007; Section 1202 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP) does not distinguish between vessels and other articles sought to be imported; and the determination of when importation begins and ends, as well as when the customs taxes and duties are imposed upon the imported item are not within the mandate and powers of the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA). In Reply to respondent's Comment, petitioner reiterates that there was no importation when the subject vessel first entered Philippine territory on September 4, 2007; petitioner never committed fraud nor even intended to deprive the government of any lawful taxes and duties; and the jurisdiction over entry of and importation of foreign vessels/ is shared by the Bureau of Customs (BOC) and MARINA. ,/

RESOLUTION C. T.A. EB NO. 91 2 Page 3 of4 Petitioner's motion must fail. Indeed, the contentions presented in the motion are but a reiteration if not mere amplification of petitioner's previous arguments which have been duly considered and thoroughly discussed by the Court in the assailed Decision of April 1, 2014. The discussion on the first issue is tucked in pages 15 to 21 while disquisition on the second issue is found in pages 21 to 26 of the Decision promulgated on April 1, 2014. Thus, the Court En Bane finds no justifiable reason or ground to modify much less reverse its ruling in the case at bar. WHEREFORE, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED, for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. . FASON-VICTORINO We Concur: ROMAN G. DE C'ROSARIO Presiding Justice ~~c . Qyt-~~,Q . LOVELL Associ JU~NITO c. CASTANEDA, JR. ff Associate Justice CAESAR A. CASANOVA {On leave) Associate Justice ERLINDA P. UY Associate Justice

RESOLUTION C. T.A. EB NO. 912 Page 4 of4 ~ N. M.:.~. G'~ ~/,~r--- CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice Associate Justice (On Leave) MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice