COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS and BUREAU OF CUSTOMS v. DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC.

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City En Bane COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CTA EB No.1142 and the BUREAU OF CUSTOMS (CTA Case No. 8409) Petitioners, Present: DEL ROSARIO, P.]., -versus- CASTANEDA, JR., BAUTISTA, DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC. UY, Respondent. CASANOVA, FABON-VICTORINO, MINDARO-GRULLA, COTANGCO-MANALASTAS, and RINGPIS-LIBAN,.U PromulgatjeN 18 2015 -~ /:~6?-~. X---------------- ------------------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X RESOLUTION CASANOVA,].: This resolves petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration1, filed on February 9, 2015, sans respondent's Comment per Records Verification dated May 5, 2015, praying that the Decision2 (Assailed Decision) promulgated on January 5, 2015, be reversed and set aside, and judgment be rendered granting petitioners' Petition for Review. The dispositive portion of the Assailed Decision reads: 11WHEREFORE, premises considered, the present Petition for Review is hereby DENIED, and accordingly DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.'~ 1 En Bane Rollo, pp. 85-95. 2 En Bane Rollo, pp. 63-77.

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1142 (CTA Case No. 8409) Page 2 of3 In support of their Motion, petitioners claim that respondent's counsel should have filed a written Notice of Appeal with the Office of the District Collector, pursuant to Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP), instead of merely filing a letter appealing the denial of respondent's claim for refund with the Commissioner of Customs. Accordingly, such erroneous procedure taken by respondent was fatal to its claim as it did not toll the reglementary period for the perfection of an appeal. Petitioners also insist that respondent failed to timely pay the corresponding docket fee, which is a mandatory condition precedent to the consideration of its protest under Section 2308 of the TCCP. Perusal of the grounds raised by petitioners in their Motion for Reconsideration reveals that the same are practically mere reiterations of their previous arguments which have been fully addressed and discussed at length by the Court En Bane in the Assailed Decision. As such, We see no reason to further discuss the same. Hence, the CTA En Bane finds no cogent justification to disturb the findings and conclusions spelled out in its January 5, 2015 Decision. What the instant Motion for Reconsideration seeks is for the Court to view and appreciate the evidence in their own perspective of things, which unfortunately had already been considered and passed upon. WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. CAESA~SANOVA Associate Justice WE CONCUR: Presiding Justice

RESOLUTION CTA EB No. 1142 (CTA case No. 8409) Q~j/0 c.~~~ Q. LOVELL R. BAUTISTA JlfANITO C. CASTANEDA,cfR. , Associate Justice ERL~.UY Associate Justice ~N.M...:~-C~ ~~;..r,~//- CIELITO N. MINDARO-GRULLA AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice Associate Justice ~.~~' MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice