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 Form No. 8 21-000307-0047

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY

FIRST DIVISION

CTA CASE NO. 10581

L.T.J.S. STORE, represented by its DE JESUS SILVA, Owner/Proprietor MR. ANTONIO Petitioner,

- versus -

North Harbor, Port Area, Manila: Manila. HON. DISTRICT COLLECTOR Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, OF CUSTOMS,Port of MICP and HON.REY LEONARDO GUERRERO, Commissioner of Respondents. NOTICE OF DECISION

To:

134 Amorsolo St., Legazpi Village Makati City OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

HON. REY LEONARDO GUERRERO COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS South Harbor, Port Area, Manila Burcau of Customs

Port of MICP. North Harbor, Port Area, Manila DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

VALDEZ LAW AND ASSOCIATES Unit 804. Futurc Point Plaza I Condominium 112 Panay Avenuc, Brgy. South Triangle 1 103 Quezon City

GREETINGS:

Decision was rendered in the above-entitled case, copy of which is attached hereto. You are hereby notified by these presents that on November 13, 2024, a

Quezon City, Philippines, November 14, 2024.

Atty. Margarette Y. Executiv Clerk of Court III Guzman

Page I of 1

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY

FIRST DIVISION

L.T.J.S. STORE, CTA CASE NO. 10581 represented by its Owner/Proprietor MR. Members:

SILVA, ANTONIO DE JESUS -versus- Petitioner, DEL ROSARIO, P.J., Chairperson, CUI-DAVID, JJ. BACORRO-VILLENA, and

HON, DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Port of MICP North Harbor, Port Area, Manila; and HON. REY

GUERRERO, LEONARDO B. Commissioner of

Port Area, Manila, Customs, South Harbor, Respondents. Promulgated NOV 13/2024: (D:tOAM

X

DECISION

CUI-DAVID, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition for Duty and Tax Refund seeking the recovery of alleged overcharged duties amounting to P767,616.49, pertaining to the importation of 20,800 bags of Vietnam White Rice.

THE PARTIES

under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, situated at Petitioner is a proprietorship store registered and existing

Docket, pp. 6 -9.

L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva v. Hon. District Collector of Customs, et. al. CTA Case No. 10581 DECISION Page 2 of 16 X

Lot 30, Block 11, Phase 2, Sto. Nino Village, Tunasan, Muntinlupa City.2

the Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area, Manila; and Respondent District Collector of Customs holds office at

Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs (BOC), with office located at South Harbor, Port Area, Manila.3 Respondent Rey Leonardo B. Guerrero is the

THE FACTS

On April 20, 2021, petitioner's shipment of 20,800 bags of Vietnam White Rice4 arrived at the Manila International Port.5 The District Collector of Customs assessed taxes and duties amounting to P4,655,941.81 for the shipment.6

On May 6, 2021, petitioner filed a Protest and Appeal for Duty and Tax Refund7 (Protest) with the BOC, contesting the assessment.

filed this Petition for Duty and Tax Refund8 (Petition) on July 9, Alleging inaction on the part of respondents, petitioner

2021, praying that respondents "be enjoined to effect the speedy

Second Division. refund of the over-charged P767,616.49.9 The case was initially raffled to the Court's duty/tax" amountingto

On July 19. 2021, the Second Division issued Summonsio to respondents, ordering them to file their answer within thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice. However, based on a

to file an answer. Records Verification dated March 1, 2022,11 respondents failed

Id. at 6, Petition for Duty and Tax Refund. par. 1. G

Exhibit "p-14", Docket, pp. 65-68. Docket, p. 8. Exhibit "P-9", Docket, p. 60. Id. at 25 Exhibit "P-1", Docket, p. 61 Docket, p. 99. Judicial Affidavit of Witness Antonio De Jesus Silva, A.6. Supra note {d.at 23

L.T.J.s. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva v. Hon. District Collector of Customs, et. al. DECISION CTA Case No. 10581 Page 3 of 16

a Motion to Declare Respondents in Default,12 with respondents Comment13 posted on May 6, 2022. On April 7, 2022, petitioner filed, through registered mail

Motion14 with an attached Answer.15 However, in a Resolution dated June 22, 2022,16 the Second Division granted petitioner's Motion to Declare Respondents in Default and deemed On April 28, 2022, respondents filed a Manifestation and

respondents' Manifestation and Motion moot.

Reconsideration,17 which the Court subsequently denied due to On July 15, 2022, respondents filed a Motion for

lack of merit.18

On May 29, 2023, the case was transferred to this Division

the Divisions of the Court) dated May 23, 2023.19 pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 01-2023 (Reorganizing

presented its lone witness, Mr. Michael C. Mertalla.20 Thereafter, petitioner was given five (5) days to file its Formal Offer of Evidence. In the ex parte hearing held on April 16, 2024, petitioner

Evidence,21 which the Court acted upon in its Resolution dated On April 22, 2024, petitioner filed its Formal Offer of

May 24, 2024.22 In that same resolution, the case was deemed submitted for decision due to respondents being declared in default.

THE ISSUE

While petitioner did not explicitly present any issues for the Court's resolution, a review of the allegations suggests that the core issue is whether petitioner is entitled to a refund of the over-charged customs duties amounting to P767,616.49.

Id. at 29-31 Id. at 71-75. fd. at 34-36 Id. at 39-45 Id. at 79-83 Id. at 84 -89 C at17 -125, Resolution dated September 13, 2022. Id. at l61 Id. at 296--297, Order. Id. at 307-308 d. at 299-303

L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva v. Hon. CTA Case No. 10581 District Collector of Customs, et. al. Page 4 of 16 DECISION

Petitioner argues that respondents' assessment of customs duties and taxes on the rice shipments does not

prescribed under Section 701 of the Customs Modernization conform with the Transaction Value System-Method One, as

for export to the Philippines. for valuation should be the price actually paid or payable for the goods, rather than a reference value, when the goods are sold and Tariff Act (CMTA). The CMTA provides that the proper basis

respondents' inaction. Consequently, petitioner filed this Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA), as there is no available appeal or practical remedy in law. Petition in accordance with Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Petitioner asserts that it has been adversely affected by

THE COURT'S RULING

The instant Petition must be dismissed.

The Court has no jurisdiction over this case.

amended by RA No. 9282,23 and Section 3(a), Rule 8 of the RRCTA,24 Under Section 11 of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, as an appeal from a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs (COC) must be filed within 30 days from receipt.

following receipt of the assailed decision or order from the COC. indicating that it was filed within the mandatory 30-day period The instant Petition does not contain any allegation

A review of the Petition reveals that the COC has not yet issued any decision on petitioner's Protest, which was filed on May 6. 2021. Instead, petitioner invokes the C0C's inaction as the basis for filing the Petition. However, inaction by the COC on matters involving customs duties, fees, or other monetary charges does not fall within the jurisdiction of the CTA

23 SEC. I1. Who May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of Appeal. - Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling

.. of ... the Commissioner'of Customs may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt f h decision or ruling SEC. 3. Who may appeal; period to file petition. - (a) A party adversely affected ... by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs ... may appeal to the Court by petition for review filed within thirty days after receipt of a copy of such decision or ruling ...

L.T.J.s. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva v, Hon. District Collector of Customs, et. al. CTA Case No. 10581 Page 5 of 16 DECISION

limited to decisions or rulings of the COC, as outlined in Section 7 of RA No. 1125, as amended by RA No. 9282: The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA)'s jurisdiction is strictly

provided: Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. - The CTA shall exercise: a.

Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed case the inaction shall be deemed a denial; thereto, : : . where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations 2. Inaction by the Commissioner of

detention or release of property affected, fines, Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs; ... (Emphasis supplied) 4. Decisions of the Commissioner of

refers exclusively to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in The term "inaction" subject to appeal under RA No. 1125

matters under the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997, as amended. No similar provision in the CMTA allows for appeals cases involving disputed assessments, refunds, and related

to the CTA based on the inaction of the COC. Section 1136 of

arising from rulings or decisions of the CoC: the CMTA expressly confines the CTA's jurisdiction to appeals

provided in this Act or by any other law, the party aggrieved by the ruling or decisions of the Commissioner may appeal to the CTA, in the manner and within the period prescribed SEC. 1136. Review by the CTA. - Unless otherwise

by law and regulations. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance,

CTA. Unless an appeal is made to the CTA in the manner and when required by this Act, may likewise be appealed to the or decision of the Commissioner or the Secretary of Finance shall be final and executory. within the period prescribed by law and regulations, the ruling

CTA's jurisdiction over the COC to reviewing decisions: In the same vein, Section 3, Rule 4 of the RRCTA limits the

CTA Case No. 10581 L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva v. Hon. District Collector of Customs, et. al. Page 6 of 16 DECISION

X

Division. - The Court in Division shall exercise: SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in

by appeal the following: (a) Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review

1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue other matters; . involving disputed assessments, refunds ... or

2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue

3. Decisions, resolutions, or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases ... ;

4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs. cases involving liability for customs duties, fees, or other monetary charges ... or other matters arising

rulings issued by the COC are subject to appeal before the CTA From the foregoing, it is evident that only decisions or

inaction of the COC cannot serve as a basis for an appeal to this inaction does not fall within this purview. Therefore, the alleged Court.

Petitioner contends that respondents' inaction and unreasonable delay in addressing its Protest justified the filing of this Petition on July 9, 2o21. This argument lacks merit. While the exhaustion of administrative remedies may be

applicable here. Petitioner has failed to allege and substantiate excused in cases of unjustifiable delay or inaction that could cause irreparable prejudice to petitioner, this exception is not

the material dates demonstrating "unjustifiable inaction and unfair delay" by respondents in resolving the protest and appeal.

In the absence of a decision or ruling from the COC--and given that no legal provision permits an appeal based on inaction -the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Petition.

Accordingly, the Petition must be dismissed

CTA Case No. 10581 District Collector of Customs, et. al. DECISION L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva v. Hon. Page 7 of 16 X

Rule 42 of the Revised Rules a petition for review under of Court. The Petition failed to comply with the form and content of

party adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the COC may Revised Rules of Court, within thirty (30) days from receipt of the decision or ruling: file a petition for review with the CTA under Rule 42 of the Section 11 of RA No. 1125, as amended, provides that any

Appeal. - Any party adversely affected by a decision, ruling of ... the Commissioner of Customs ... may file an appeal with the CTA within thirty (30) days after the receipt of such decision or ruling or after the expiration of the period fixed by law for action as referred to in Section 7(a)(2) herein. SEC. 11. Who May Appeal; Mode of Appeal; Effect of

under a procedure analogous to that provided for under Rule 42 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure with the CTA within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the decision or ruling or in the case of inaction as herein provided, from the expiration of the period fixed by law to act thereon. (Emphasis supplied Appeal shall be made by filing a petition for review

In turn, Section 2, Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the required form and contents of such petitions:

impleading the lower courts or judges thereof either as filed in seven (7) legible copies, with the original copy intended petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the specific material dates showing that it was filed on time; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, the issues raised, the specification of errors of fact or law, or both, reasons or arguments relied upon for the allowance of the for the court being indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full names of the parties to the case, without allegedly committed by the Regional Trial Court, and the SEc. 2. Form and contents. - The petition shall be

appeal; (d) be accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both

Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions of the lower courts, certified correct by the clerk of court of the

record as would support the allegations of the petition.

The petitioner shall also submit together with the petition a certification under oath that he has not

CTA Case No. 10581 District Collector of Customs, et. al. DECISION L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva v. Hon. Page 8 of 16

same issues in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals theretofore commenced any other action involving the or different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency; if there is such other action or proceeding, he must state the status of the same; and if he should thereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or different undertakes to promptly inform the aforesaid courts and other divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, he tribunal or agency thereof within five (5) days therefrom. (Emphasis supplied)

Furthermore, Section 3. Rule 42 of the Revised Rules of Court states that petitioner's failure to comply with any of the requirements under Section 2 is a sufficient ground for dismissal:

The failure of the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements regarding the payment of the docket the petition, and the contents of and the documents which and other lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service of SEC. 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements.

for the dismissal thereof. (Emphasis supplied) should accompany the petition shall be sufficient ground

Upon review, petitioner failed to articulate the 'specific issues or questions of law or fact being raised for resolution, the reasons or arguments relied upon supporting the Petition, and the specific material dates showing that the Petition was filed on time. The absence of these required contents impedes the Court's ability to assess the merits of the case, thereby justifying the dismissal of the Petition.

In addition, the Verification and Certification of Non Forum Shopping25 attached to the Petition failed to comply with the requirements of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court, to wit:

specifically required "by law or rule, pleadings need not be under oath or verified. SEC.4.Verification. Except when otherwise

A pleading is verified by an affidavit of an affiant duly authorized to sign said verification. The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary's certificate or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading, and shall allege the following attestations:

Docket, pp. 8-9.

L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva v. Hon. District Collector of Customs, et. al. CTA Case No. 10581 Page 9 of 16 DECISION

based on his personal knowledge, or based on authentic documents; (a) The allegations in the pleading are true and correct

(b) The pleading is not filed to harass, cause

litigation; and unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of

discovery. support or, if specifically so identified, will likewise have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for (c) The factual allegations therein have evidentiary

certification of the truthfulness of the allegations in the pleading. The signature of the affiant shall further serve as a

verification based on "information and belief," or upon verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading. (Emphasis supplied) "knowledge, information and belief," or lacks a proper A pleading required to be verified that contains a

pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed thereto and commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the simultaneously filed therewith: a) that he has not theretofore claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar action within five (5) calendar days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact SEC. 5. Certification against forum shopping. -- The

The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a secretary's certificate or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading.

shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements

provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a

undertakings therein shall constitute indirect contempt of false certification or court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. ... (Emphasis supplied) non-compliance with any of the

L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva v, Hon. District Collector of Customs, et. al. CTA Case No. 10581 Page 10 of 16 DECISION

Forum Shopping suffers from the following defects: Specifically, the Verification and Certification of Non

(a) The Verification failed to allege the attestations

the Revised Rules of Court; provided in Section 4 {a), (b), and (c), Rule 7 of

(b) The Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping was signed by an unauthorized party the President of Goldmine Rice Marketing. who is "acting in [his] representative capacity as

In this case, Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva (Mr. Silva), whc signed the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, acted in his capacity as President of Goldmine Rice Marketing, which is not the named petitioner here.

The Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping must be executed by a person duly authorized to represent the

special power of attorney. However, petitioner failed to submit petitioner, supported by either a secretary's certificate or a

any such document to demonstrate Mr. Silva's authority to act on behalf of L.T.J.S. Store, the named petitioner.

an unsigned pleading, as stipulated under Section 4, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court. In addition, Section 5, Rule 7 of the The lack of proper verification renders the Petition akin to

same Rules provides that a defective certification serves as a valid basis for dismissal.

filed. The Petition is belatedly

Even if the Court were to assume jurisdiction and overlook the deficiencies in the Petition, this case must still be dismissed due to the late filing. The relevant provisions of the CMTA governing the procedure for protesting assessments are as follows:

party adversely affected by a decision or omission of the Bureau pertaining to an importation, exportation, or any other legal claim shall have the right to appeal within SEC. 114. Right of Appeal, Forms and Ground. - Any

fifteen (15) days from receipt of the questioned decision or order

CTA Case No. 10581 L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva v. Hon. DECISION District Collector of Customs, et. al. Page 11 of 16

prescribed in this Act or by regulation and shall specify the grounds thereof. An appeal in writing shall be filed within the period

submission of supporting evidence to the appeal. The Bureau may allow a reasonable time for the

valuation, rules of origin, and other customs issues is made. thereafter, a written protest setting forth the objection to the ruling or decision in question and the reasons District Collector or customs officer involving goods with except the fixing of fines in seizure cases, the party adversely affected may appeal by way of protest against such ruling or decision by presenting to the Commissioner at the time when payment of the amount claimed to be due the government is made, or within fifteen (15) days SEC. 1106. Protest -- When a ruling or decision of the

therefore.

Commissioner shall provide such rules and regulations as to the requirement for payment or nonpayment of the disputed importation under protest upon posting of sufficient security. amount and in case of nonpayment, the release of the Subject to the approval of the Secretary of Finance, the

reviewed, shall file a protest as provided in Section 1106 Case. - In all cases subject to protest, the interested party who desires to have the action of the District Collector of this Act, otherwise the action of the District Collector shall be final and conclusive. SEC. 1107. Protest Exclusive Remedy in Protestable

be filed in accordance with the prescribed rules and the particular decision or ruling of the District Collector for which protest is being made, and shall indicate the particular ground or grounds upon which the protesting party bases the claim for relief. The scope of a protest shall be limited to the particular goods subject of a goods declaration, but any number of issues may be raised in a protest with reference to the goods declaration constituting the subject matter of the regulations promulgated under this section. It shall specify SEC. 1108. Form and Scope of Protest. - A protest shall

protest.

filed in proper form, the Commissioner shall render a decision'within thirty (30) days from receipt of the protest. In case the protest is sustained, in whole or in part, SEC. 1110. Decision in Protest. - When a protest is

the appropriate order shall be made, and the entry reassessed, if necessary. (Emphasis supplied

CTA Case No. 10581 District Collector of Customs, et. al. DECISION L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva v. Hon. Page 12 of 16 X

Implementing the above provisions is Customs Administrative Order (CAO) No. 02-2020, 26 which outlines the

procedures for valuation matters, viz.: pertinent sections regarding dispute settlement and protest

Valuation. SEC. 6. Dispute Settlement Arising from Customs

the valuation, he may elevate the matter to the the District Collector. before Assessment becomes final, the Customs Officer may challenge the declaration made by the importer as to the dutiable value of the goods pursuant to Section principal appraiser and thereafter to the Chief, Formal Entry Division or equivalent unit, then to the Deputy Collector for Assessment, and finally to 707 of the CMTA. If the importer does not agree with 6.1. Upon lodgment of goods declaration and

.

may appeal by way of protest against such ruling in accordance with this CAO 6.5. The aggrieved importer adversely affected

appeal the ruling in accordance with this CAO. adverse to the importer, he may seek reconsideration'or 6.6. In case the ruling of the Commissioner is

SEC. 10. Protest.

stakeholder directly affected by the adverse ruling of in writing to the Commissioner within fifteen (15) the District Collector in all Protestable Cases arising from tariff classification, valuation, rules of origin or other customs issues, may appeal by way of protest 10.1. The aggrieved importer or exporter or any

days from receipt of the adverse ruling of the District Collector or, when payment is made as a

from such payment.27 Otherwise, the action of the result of the adverse ruling, within fifteen (15) days

District Collector shall be final and conclusive.28

ruling of the District Collector for which protest is being Claim for relief. The scope of a protest shall be limited to made, and shall indicate the particular ground 'or grounds upon which the protesting party bases the 10.2. A protest filed shall specify the particular

Dispute Settlement and Protest, April 4, 2020. CMTA, Title XI, Chapter 2, Section 1 107. CMTA, Title XI, Chapter 2, Section 1106

CTA Case No. 10581 L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva v. Hon. District Collector of Customs, et. al. Page 13 of 16 DECISION

any number of issues may be raised in a protest with subject matter of the protest. the particular goods subject of a goods declaration, but reference to the goods declaration constituting the

(30) days from receipt of the protest. Otherwise, the the Commissioner shall render a ruling within thirty the Commissioner fails to act on the same. ruling of the Collector shall be deemed affirmed if 10.3. When a protest is filed in proper form.

Reconsideration with the Commissioner.29 aggrieved by the ruling of the Commissioner, other than a ruling on tariff classification, may, within fifteen (15) calendar days, from receipt of the ruling, file a Motion for SEC. 1l. Motion for Reconsideration. The importer

made to the CTA in the manner and within the period herein executory.30 prescribed, the ruling of the Commissioner shall be final and SEC. 12. Finality of the Decision. Unless an appeal is

decision of the Commissioner may appeal said decision tc the CTA within thirty (30) days from receipt of the adverse decision or final order of the Commissioner.31 (Emphasis Section 13. Appeal. An importer aggrieved by the

supplied

customs officer's valuation, the issue may be elevated to the From the foregoing, if a petitioner disagrees with the

principal appraiser, followed by the Chief of the Formal Entry Division, then to the Deputy Collector for assessment, and finally, the District Collector.

An aggrieved importer affected by a District Collector's ruling may file a written protest with the COC within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the adverse ruling or within fifteen (15) days after making a payment resulting from that ruling.32 Otherwise. the ruling of the District Collector shall be final and conclusive.33

CMTA, Tit!e XI, Chapter 9, Section I136. Id., in relation to Rule 41, Section 3 of the Rules of Court and Neypes v. Hon. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 141524, CAO No. 02-2020, Section 10.1. d d September 14, 2005 [Per J. Corona, En Banc].

L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva v. Hon Page 14 of 16 District Collector of Customs, et. al. CTA Case No. 10581 DECISION

render a ruling within thirty (30) days from receipt of the protest. If the COC fails to act within this period, the ruling of ruling be adverse to the importer, the importer may file a motion days from receipt of the adverse ruling or appeal to the CTA the District Collector is deemed affirmed.34 Should the COC's for reconsideration with the COC within fifteen (15) calendar within thirty (30) days from receipt of the adverse decision or When a protest is filed in proper form, the COC shall

final order.

fails to indicate that petitioner first elevated the matter to the principal appraiser, then to the Chief of the Formal Entry submitting its Protest to respondents.35 However, the Petition attempted to exhaust possible administrative remedies by Division, followed by the Deputy Collector for assessment, and In this case, petitioner claims that on May 6, 2021, it

finally to the District Collector. Petitioner only alleges that on separate dates, it presented notices of payments under protest

Collector;36 however, it has not provided supporting evidence for against the valuation and collection made by the District this claim.

Even if the Court assumes that a prior ruling was issued

through petitioner's Protest--thereby being "deemed affirmed" by the District Collector and subsequently elevated to the COC due to the COC's inaction within 30 days of receiving the Protest

Petition due to its belated filing. on May 6, 2021--the Court would still lack jurisdiction over the

02-2020, petitioner may appeal to the CTA the "deemed affirmed" ruling of the District Collector resulting from the COC's inaction. Following the filing of the Protest on May 6, Under Section 10.3, in relation to Section 13 of CAO No.

petitioner alleges inaction by the COC on its Protest, it had until 2021, the C0C had until June 5, 2021, to act on it. Given that

July 5, 2021, to file an appeal with the CTA.

9, 2021, which renders the alleged ruling of the District Collector--deemed affirmed due to the COC's inaction--final However, petitioner filed the present Petition only on July

and executory

Docket, p. 7, Petition for Duty and Tax Refund, par. 3. CAO No. 02-2020, Section 10.3. Supra note 2, at par. 2

L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva v. Hon. District Collector of Customs, et. al CTA Case No. 10581 Page 15 of 16 DECISION

right nor a part of due process; rather, it is a statutory privilege that must be exercised strictly in accordance. with the It is established that the right to appeal is neither a natural

provisions of law.37 Thus, compliance with legal requirements is

permitted.3: This serves as a reminder that adherence to imperative, and any deviation from established rules cannot be

procedural rules is crucial for the effective administration of justice.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review is DISMISSED for Iack of jurisdiction.

SO ORDERED.

LANEE S. CUI-DAVID

Associate Justice WE CONCUR:

Xou

ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO

Presiding Justice

C

JEAN MARIE 3ACORRO-VILLENA

Issopiate Justice

See Spouses Baniqued v. Ramos, G.R. No. 158615. March 4, 2005 [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second Division]. Boardsralk Busiess Yentures, litc. . Tillareal, G.R. No.181182, April 10, 2013 [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division]; Fenequito v. Vergara. Jr., G.R. No. 172829, July 18, 2012 [Per J. Peralta. Third Division]: Producers Bank of the Philippines v. Honorable Court of* Appeals, C.R. No. 126620, April 17, 2002 [Per J. Carpio, Third Division].

CTA Case No. 10581 L.T.J.S. Store, represented by its Owner/Proprietor Mr. Antonio De Jesus Silva v. Hon. District Collector of Customs, et. al. DECISION Page 16 of 16

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.

o& ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice