CTA Case No. 1990 (Resolution)

� -. , , .... , ~. � -~ I AEPUBLIC M' TJlE PJI'lLIPPillfEI' COURT OF TAX APPE.A.LI QUEZON errY COMPANIA GENERAL DE . C. T.A. CASE NO . 199.0 TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, � Petitioner, versus COLLECTOR QF CUSTOMS, Respondent . X- - - - - - - - - X RESOLUTION This is in connection with a ttMotion to Dismiss" the petition for review filed by re- spondent on -April 12, 1971 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It appears that the Collector of Customs, after hearing, found the HS Rita Maersk to have no rat guards in violation of Section 2529-h(1) of the Tariff and Customs Code, and imposed against petitioner, the ship's local shipping agents, a fine of �200 . 00 in his decision dated December 9 , 1964. On January! 4, 1964, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration dated December �29, 1964, which was denied by the Collector of Customs on January 19, 1965. From this order, petitioner filed on January 22 , 1965 a notice of appeal seeking t~e review of the said decision of the Collector by the Commis-

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 1990 2 �sioner of Customs. However , on January 2~, � 1965, the Collector of Customs � informed petitioner that the notice of appeal cannot be _given due course in view of the fact that. the decision sought to be reviewed is not appealable but protestable; that under Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code, only cases involving (a) action or decision of the Collector in seizure cases; and (b) decision or action in any matter presented upon protest are appealable to the Commissioner of Custom~; and that the proper remedy is for petitioner to pay the fine and file the proper protest in accor- dance w~th Sections 2308 to 2310 of the same Code: On February 27, 1965, petitioner paid the fine of ~200 . 00 under protest . Instead of pre- senting evidence in the protest case however peti- tioner filed a motion to dismiss the administrative case in which the fine of ~200 . 00 was imposed . The Collector of Customs denid the motion to dis- miss, but set the protest case for hearing. After the hearing, Collector of Customs Jose F. Viduya, in his decision of Februar~ ~ 6 , 1969, ruled against the protest for lack of merit . From this decision of respondent Collector of Customs�, petitioner filed the instant petition for review. ~ Under Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code, the decision or action of the � Collect~r of

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO . 1990 3 Customs in any matter presented upon protest or his a ction in any case of seizure may , within fifteen days after notice in writing of his action or decision, give written notice to the Collector of his desire to have the matter reviewed by the Commissioner of Customs . Petitioner having failed to appeal from the decision of the Collector of Customs dated February 6, 1969 to the Commissioner of Customs, no decision could have been rendered by the latter , from whose decision an appeal can be taken to the Court of Tax Appeals within 30 days from receipt thereof under the provisions of Sections7(2) , in relation to Section 2402 of Republic Act No . 1937, and 11 of Republic Act No. 1125. (Southwest Agricultural Harketing Corporation f v . The Secretary of Finance, � et al ., G. R. L-24797 , Oct . 8, 1968; Negros Navigation Co., Inc . v . Comm . of Customs, G. R. L-18629 , May 31, +963 ; Caltex (Phil . ) Inc . v �. Comrn . of �Internal Revenue, G.R. L-20462, June 30, 1965; Procter & Gamble Philippines ' Mar- .� keting Corp . v . The Comm . of Customs, C':J?A Case No. 2155, April 15, 1971 . ) The decision of the Collector of Customs is not directly appealable to the Court of Tax Appeals and , therefore, we have no jurisdiction -to take cognizance of the instant appeal . (Rufino Lopez v . C. T.A. , 100 Phil . 850; �

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO . 1990 4 Chan Kian v . C. T.A.., .105 Phil . 904; CMS Estate Inc . v . Comm . pf Customs, G.R. L- 1.8773 , January 31, 1964; see also� Caltex (Phil . ) Inc. v . Corr~ . of Internal Revenue, C. T. A. Case No ~ 1149 , Dec. 5, 1970; Procter & Gamble Philippine Hanufacturing Corp . v . The Comm . of Customs, op . cit . ) WHEREFORE, the petition for review fS hereby dismissed, with costs . SO ORDERED . Quezon City, June 5, 1971 . . RO:ttJAN N. UVlALI Presiding Judge L ~v"~ J . ' ~ rL._ 'L4AfO!R~ . ALVfR~ RAMON L . AVANCEKA Associate Judge . Associate Judg pt