CTA Case No. 281 (Decision)
� v r$Ut$ - x-- - - - - ~ ~.- - ' - ~ ~x D ClS ION Th1 ia a p titJ.c to revl w the dO i sion on s i ...n 1 of 0 s in Seiz r ld ntificatiot o. 1367, f i ... ci ion of t of C t for � ort of ;an11 , h fo fe1t Ul'e of fort1 -s v n (47) pi cell n ous rt c con ui n �ng ... violati on of C n.. tr l nJc. Circ in t:el tion to "ection 1363 ( ) of t , v n.:i.Gt:r ive Co de. It ppeo.x:s t oner Fil a I 1.. Lor n- %ana , n odvic of r phy 1 i r � nt to I on ong som ti in .. n nry, 1954 or ll 6llOrt v c tion. n f ru � l.9 , on J:d the � � nd � ebro 9 ht it t t er, as � ceo an d 99 ge � t foll .ng erti st t � ool s � 34 ca e . 98 }II w�
c u. 281 /I 0
� 26l - 3- of t e f hilippincs wa in vfol; i n of n 1: l ank Circul ar t.o. 4!:> , in x l a ion to etton 1 3 ( ) of the �novisod dcinistr tiv .. ceti n n! e h ond in f v r th OV nt. Pct iti er th to the Co sion r of Cu to~ , who 8 in his c:i s1 nn an d tGd 19~. Henc , ~h 1r s nt for t Is � t e !oll ing i su s ( ) th r or ot 1 .. portetio . i n on involve the s lo or ign neth r or not s id. orta o . xchan t nd ( .) it r d C ntr 1 n t .ire - is a ject t o lar o. __n rcl tion t ion ... 3 1 ) o eviaed t!v Coa .� ( n �orm c i on i t h t fi st is u , aint in . ti t h oood J � p~"id o:t� or p !d for i h 11 th blec� rk �� r, p tition t xe !08 no sale or 1 exc n tr naaet1on3. In o t of t<: tioner t stifi d .. o the o rc of th eh� ata ed that th t0 for aafeke 1ng in 1 to ev rino Valenc a of 0. .. s., �� h.... th y were t oget r in t he it eG I �hich 1 thdrew fr t e l tt r n er d o ; no- ther au of . oo w borrowed fro � nd l' � 1_00
- .r ... � 281 - d 1 of York c ty, U. , . A. nd , 1 tly, her c iv d fro the 0 her brot r in Hen 1 1 , 11 , of . 11 i. 11 th refor , rt h 1'! d v 11- able 1, incl ding th u h r c v d fr t c ntr 1 nk of t ilippines. it r erd to t h thot c 1'0 tr. an � v rino le ci lch p tition ied to as b 1 to r n of th of o t in d f r .r th r, in ch ia no vide .c t th co � to c- c t t t . t ony a tr eon id rin t on of out of the did t inv lv t 1 of � i th t to i c p titio r 0 of df r. �d , it n ~ t � un t r as c dito a ki d ( rt. 1 , Cj 11 � i . � ' in r � It t r1 t f'l 0 li a 1 ich uld nee s rily involv h l of xeh � rd t nt ~f iv n by th tr 1 n to r- so al expenses b in no evidence th t h nt t a o nt f r su pu oae , we con t th e �a n ir ent an could not ve n to of th rch ndi � in qu ten . T.1 ~o 1 th r for ... ' 10t jo~
o. 281 to ... 1 "' 0 - n that p t1ti r 1 d only e chang o t ic s could p rch :rc n di � (t unct r , � t 1 1 ort nt t not t exe or n t tt in u nt on cost o l to po nt out it p rtic 1 rity nn ic n tion th r o d y c to ut 1t of 5 , 41 � ( t. t r for cc ctn t h r of, con t 1 t el h n in ai y X P� 2 , c r c� � )zt th t p t "tion r, h o/F b � irr.port d .rc it ot 1 ( 2,7 7. 2) n h bl f ds hie di not n- volve for 1 n tr ns ction e o t d only to ( r iG id ntly rch ndi 1n u con tr ir. d t old th t t 1 ort ti h in, t l t to th xt nt of t id iff r nc of inv lv t e al f fo i n �c n ich t p ti ion r ,t XC r ir d y C nt l nk Circ �� 1 proc d tc t co d i r:u , 1 . � , r or not t he i ort t on h r in 1 ubj ct t r it r 10 2 I~ �
.. Sect on 13 3 (f) o tl vi d Admin str.. tiv Cod � This Court � conoi�tently ld in ver 1 ca t .... 1 ~n of t 11ppir , Wld r 1 ifi- . ublic Act t ?. o , n po port t t do not involv tl l e fori n xch n ' r o. 4~ is null ono void 1 0 ar � .it ov 0 fo 1e 0 exc ng ia r quir quir d (L rio v. Co ission t� , C. T. � c � � oril 955c p cual v . vid, c. r.l\. c o. , s ' 19~ ; n v . Co r, C. T. � � 1? j l 6� uyong i n ' � i"" ion � 219. ctob r 31 , 1956� J c ' Co 1o r , c. I � � 1 4, ctob 1 1 n � � T. . c � 2.3:.>, 19:J }. 0 1 0 tion i.nv lvc t li 1 r C ntr 1 nl b t1 Cir ul � l , r r 1 td s . ., 10 3 � J
� 281 -7- � lyin eh v t v� rd the pplie il y of tr l _rc;ul r o. 5 to ! rt tiona inv v ng der se d ci ul r rson 9 ods fz-o ny � � � � or ign exch ge le ro i or i 1 i �� � requi d p v o a cense � � � � oriz such 1 ort.� xcepticn t e 1 id ci cul x exclud s f aaid re lr n - / J O~
Cl re - � � � ~ � ~ � 2l ... ; ind th t t i rt.tion of p titi n r i b yond th b n fit of the orernent1on. e.c tion) f ir t, th ti n xc d on thous nd 0( ' �nd cond , con 1 rin t r f it ia r on bly f ir to conclud t �t r not n... t ndod 1 l for rr-onal use. t r, ~ gx e I ina rou ht or co rei 1 urpo s, c n id ring th t ti 1 ner rn rely in va u th t t int n s gift for h r tiv , fr~ d nd c loy s i t F. L. Lor n n on , Inc. It foll th r foro t t i ort tion to t xtant t it involv f xc .. n is ub- j t to lie nsing und r i C n 1 n Circ 1 r o. 4 .. n th t in t i ca , titi r pur- lt ch d rch ndi in on ong ith al , 41~. 64 ( 2 , 7 7 . 2) nd t t 2, 1, . 00~ I of t pure G d pric th ze f did not in ol t anl 0 fori n �b 0 , tl port! n t 0 ' f ich fj 1 ort d int o nting to 3 , 415. 64 ( 1,7 7. 2) w~ ... 0 c1 witho\.at li- cenn fr thv C ntr 1 ni of t. 111 pin and ia t her fore , r.u jcct to forf tur in f v th 1.05 Joq
-- p lie of th i lip. in , fo 1olaticn of c ' t1 1 n Ci 5 , in r 1 on te (f) of th 1.1 t tiv o � tit.len r h vin bo��d i uro of � 0 th r 1 of rch n i~ n ina h r ult of th e �1 ur~ nroc , th port . of d b r.cl ubj c t f rf it rc ould b w 1 4l . 64/ ,4lU. o 5 ,3S2. 6 or D' Vl n , th d c ion r. eal in S !2. I n... �� 1...67 it:! odifi a in t n of th h bon � fil d by tition r orary ch is � t , ct � 0 3 . ... 1. th to t l ie f t h by o r 0 co t tv p t t1 . x. nil , 11 ' tuch , 1 7. 1 06 J !J
More in CTA Decisions
- L.T.J.S. STORE, represented by its Owner/Proprietor MR. ANTONIO DE JESUS SILVA v. HON. DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area, Manila and HON. REY LEONARDO GUERERRO, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila(CTA Case No. 10581)
- FILMINERA RESOURCES CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 8610)
- APPLIED FOOD INGREDIENTS CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 9952)
- CITY OF MANILA and LIBERTY M. TOLEDO, (City Treasurer of the City of Manila), v. PHILIPPINE BEVERAGE PARTNERS, INC., substituted by COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES, INC., and the Hon. PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 173, MANILA(CTA Case No. AC-122)
- MCDONALDS PHILIPPINES REALTY CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 8506)
- CTA Case No. O-12 (Decision)(CTA Case No. O-12)
- THE CITY TREASURER OF MAKATI and the CHIEF OF THE LICENSE DIVISION OF THE CITY OF MAKATI v. FUJI XEROX PHILIPPINES, INC. (FXPI)(CTA Case No. AC-284)
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ASURION HONG KONG LIMITED-ROHQ(CTA Case No. EB 2257)
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.