CTA Case No. 3360 (Decision)

.'1 r:. : --� , ~ (~ �--; "", r,. r 11 ~ u r r I!~ r.;� Lu l H 1 � : '. :- , ' L .1L:1 i..o ' 1'--� ' J ' t. i i ' { / ARMSTRONG EXPORT, Petitioner, - versus C.T.A. CASE NO. 33i0 HON. RAMON FAROLAN, in his capacity as Commissioner of Customs, o/2( lw Respondent 0 X- - - - - - .... - - ... X DE C I S I 0 N This refers to a petition t o review the order of respondent, Commissioner of Customs, date3 June 25, 1981 remanding the case to the office of the Collector of customs. It appears that petitioner is a claimant in Seizure Identification No. 71-81, entitled Republic of the Ph ilippines vs. Twelve (12) Containers of Assorted Foodstuffs in 8,750 Car- tons. On April 21, 1981 claimant, through counsel, wrote the Collector of Customs manifest- ing its desire to secure the release of the merch~ndise in quest ion consisting ot twelve ( 12) containers of foodstuffs und(~r bo nd. On April 28, 1981, the Collect o r of Cu s toms issued an order denying the reque s t o t claiindnt for the release under bond of the above aticles. Subsequently , on May 4, 1981 , claima nt through counsel, filed a motion for reconsider- ation of the ord er of the Coll!':'C t nc �� f C u !; t~oms G5

DECI SION CTA CASE NOe 3 3i 0 - 2- dated April 28� 198 1 on grounds of errors or irre gularities c ommitted in the appreciation of the request for release under bond� which mo tion was denied on May 11. 1981 by the Co ll ec tor of Cus toms @ Petitioner thereaft e r f i led a notice o f appeal with the Col lector of Customs p sign ifying therefor~ the i nten t io n on its p art to e l e vate the c ase to the Commissioner of Customs . On May 21, 1981~ peti ti oner fil ed its peti tion for r e view with the Commi ss i oner of Cus toms. On June 19, 1981, petitioner filed a . "Petition For Resolution o f Petition" preci- pitated apparently by the delay in the making of the resol ution by res pondent Commissioner of Customs on the petition for review. Consequent- ly, on Jun e 25, 1981, respondent Commissione r , instead of resolving the petition for review, issued an order remanding the case to the office of the Collecto r of Customs for the purpose of continuing with t he hearing on the mer its of the case. Hence, this appeal . Th e issues to be resolved are, t o wit : 1 ) Whether or not this Court acq u ir e d jurisdiction over the ca s e; 2) Whether or not Lhe p r o vi s i (' n :; o f GG

DECI SION CTA CASE NO. 3 3i 0 - 3- Section 230 1 of the Tarif f and Customs Code is mandatory, and in the a ffirma ti ve ; and 3) Whether o r not petitioner is entitled to the rel ease o f the shipment . w- ith respect to the first issu e as to whether or not this Co ur t a cquir e d jurisd icti o n over th e case, the a ppropriate provision of the law appli- cable in this case is Section 7(2) o f Republic Ac t 1125, which we quot e : SEC, 7. J uri sdiction,- 'I'he Cour t of Tax Appeals shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to rev ie w by a~al, as herein provided - XXX XXX XXX (2) Decisions of the Commiss ioner of Cus toms i n ca ses involving liability for cus toms duties, fees or other mor~y charges; seizure, detention or release of pr6perty affec ted ; fines, fo rfe itures or othe r penalties impose~ i n relation thereto; or o ther matters arising under the Cu stoms Law or ot her law or p ar t of law admini stered by the Bureau o f Customs. Under the above-quoted provision, it is very clear that this Court has no j uri s ~i ction over the present appeal. What is appealed here is an interlocutory order. An interlocutory order is one wh ich is -not final in character and do not involve a decision of the case on its merito The order of the Collector of Cu stoms denying the r elea s e of the shipment to petition er wh ich was the subje ct of ap p eal to the Commis s.ic.' tH~r nt Customs wa s a mere i n cide nt of th e p er, rl in q ~;f"-L'; UL"' proceedings i n Seizure Pr oce eding ~c . 71 - 81 . L

.. ' DECISION CTA CASE NO. 33i0 - 4- - That is preci sely the reason why th~ Commissio ne r of Customs issue d a n order remanding the case to the office of the Collector of Customs. Therefore* the order of the Comm is s i oner of Customs i s not appealable to this Court. Having h e ld that this Court has no jur is-� dict ion, we will no longer discuss the l ast t wo {2) issu es for having become moot and~ademic. WHEREFORE, the petitio n for review is hereby DISMISSED. SO ORDERED" Quezon City, Metro Manila, March 21, . 1983~ - CON3.TANTE C. ROAQUIN Associate Judge WE CONCUR: ~QJ AMANTE ,FILLER Presidi&g J 11dge 68