CTA Case No. 2155 (Resolution)

, /, U~PUBLIC o:r THE PHILIPPINEI COURT OJ.i' TAX APPE.ALI QUEZON CITY PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINE C. T. A. CASE NO. 2155 MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Pettittmn@;, versus THE COM!<iiSSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent. X- - - - - - ~ - - - ~ - X BESOLUTION This refers to respondent's Answer with Motion to Dismiss filed on December 12, 1970. More particularly, it refers to the prayer therein that the petition be dismissed for lack of juris- diction by this Court and for lack of a cause of action. It appears from the allega.tions of the peti- tion for review that on July 25, 1958, petitioner paid ~,596.00 for duties and surCharges on imported merchandise. Since allegedly the correct amount of collectible duties was only P3,~0.00 there was therefore an overpayment of il5,116.00; wherefore, on July 30, 1968, petitioner filed a written re- quest for the refund of the latter sum. Again, on November 10, 1968 petitioner paid '3,816.00 as duties and surcharges and in this respect there was allegedly an overpayment of P2,380.oo. On

RESOLUTIO!l - CTA CASE NO. 2155 2 November 18, 1968, petitioner filed a written re- quest tor the refund of this overpayment. In view of the fact that to date respondent has not re- solved the above claims for refun4 petitioner is allegedly "now compelled to file this instant peti- tion i.n order to comply with the mandatory require- ment of the law that suits for the recovery of auties and surcharges illegally �and erroneously collected ~houl4 be filed before -this Honorable Court within two years from date of payment to the government." Section 7 of Republic Act 1125 provides that the Court of Tax Appeals shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction to review by appeal decisions of the Commissioner of Customs. Section 11 of the same law provides that any person, association or oor- poration adversely affected by a deoision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs may file an appeal to the Court ot Tax Appeals. It is clear from t hese provisions that only decisions of the Com- missioner of Customs can be appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals and since no decision has as yet been rendered by the Commissioner of Customs on petitioner's request for refund, this petition is premature and should be dismissed (Southwest Agri- cultural Marketing Corporation v. The Secretary

'- RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 2155 � 1 �, 3 ;' of Finance et al., G.R. No. L-2~797, October 8, 1968; Negros Navigation Co., Inc. v. Comm. of Cus- toms, G.R. No. L-18629, May 31, 1963.) There is no merit in petitioner's pretension that its appeal should be entertained by us be- cause it ~s filed to comply with the two-year period provided by law within which to file an action for ��recovery of duties and surcharges illegally or erroneously collected." The law referred to by petitioner is obviously Section 306 ot the Nation- al Interna.l Revenue Code which provides as follows: SEC. 306. RecoverY of tix er- toneouslv or illegallY collegted.-- No suit or peoceeding shall be main- tained in any court tor the recovery or �any national internal-revenue tax hereafter alleged to have been er- roneously or illegally assessed or collected, or of any penalty .elaimeci to have been collected without author- ity, or of any sum alleged to have been excessive or in any manner wrong- fully collected, until a claim for refund or credit has been duly filed with the Commissioner of Internal Re- venue; but such suit or proceeding may be maintained, whether or not such tax, penalty, or sum has been paid under protest or duress. In any case, no such suit or proceeding shall be begun after the expiration or two years from the date of payment of the tax or penalty� But this provision applies only to national in- ternal revenu~ taxes as specifically stated there- in, and not to customs � duties and surcharges which are governed by the Tariff and Customs Code, not

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 2155 4 by the National Internal Revenue Code. Thus, says the Supreme Court on this point: � � � That there is no decision or ruling by the Collector of Customs or Commissioner of Customs on the requests of appellant for refund, is abundantly clear from the very allega- tions in the petition. Pursuant, therefore, to the above ruling of this Court, the presentation of the Petition for Review with the CTA was premature, for as things stood then, there was nothing to review. We cannot, by mere analogy, apply the interpretation given to See. 306 of the Internal Rev. Code to Sec. 7, par. 2 of Rep. Act 1125. Not only was the petition directed against the Customs officials, but it also appears that Sec. 306 has no counterpart in . the Tariff and Customs Code. There is no statutory grant for importers claiming refUnd of duties to go dir- ectly to the CTA without waiting the decision of the Collector of Customs or Commissioner of Customs. For one thing, the Collector ot Commissioner may order the refund of the taxes in question, in which event a review would not be necessary. (Ace Pub- lications, Inc. v. The Commissioner or Customs and the Collector of Cus- toms, , G.R. No. L-18808, May 29, 1964.) Needless to �say this Co t has no jurisdic- tion to entertain the present petition. Having reached this conclusion we fll:nciU it unnecessary to dwell on the other issue posed by the motion to dismiss. WHEREFORE, this petition is hereby dismissed

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO~ 2155 with costs. SO ORDERED. Quezon City , April 15, 1971 . tL f L , RAMON L. AVANCElifA Associate Judge WE CONCUR: l -:?r~ .ROMAN M. UMALI ' \ Presiding Judge l (~~~N~ISLA..O R0. A~LVARr, r Associate Judge