CTA Case No. 319 (Resolution)

REPUBLIG OR TIR PHILIPPINES UU MANILA L APPEALS

FACTORY, CHAN KIAN, doing ousiness under the name end style SHANGIWI TING TING SOY Petitioner,

o versus - CASNO.319 V.T.A.

THE OMMISS IONER OF CUSTOMS Retpondent. i/41s4

Xc DCX

RESOLUIION

This is a Motion te Diamiss filed by res-

pondent for lack of jurisdiction over the subjact

matter horeof.

On the baois Of the evidence preliminerily

estahlished in connection with this incident, it

appears thet on Cctober 24, i953. petitioney Chan

Kian,recaived p,22,Custons Records) a copy of

the decioion of the Collector of Custous for the

Port of Manila,dated Septeabor l9,1955 (Anne c,Petition for Review Pp.23-24,Customs Re- cords), ordering and decreeing the forfeiture of

the marchandise consigned to petitioner covered by

Seizure Identification Ncs.l428. 1462, l463 and

l584. On November 19, 195s.petitioner filed a No-

tice of Appeal from the aforesaid decision to the

Comnissioner of Custoas. While the appeal was at

first denied. on reconsideration, the same was given

due couree on Merch l9, l956 by the Collecter of

1

C.T.A.CASE NO.319 SOLUTION

Customs p. lb. Cuetoma Recors) who praaumabiy

muat have trannmitted the corresponding rocozds

to respondent Commissioner of Customs. However.

the Cganiseioner of Custont, ia an order dated

June 2l,1956 (Annex *g.Petition for xeviewy . ll-l3, Custons Records) denied petitioner*s motian

to have tho case co appeal cot for hearing. Peti- tinner sought a recoasidaration ot tho said oricr.

Iwt tho motion was denied in an order datei July l4.

1956 copy ct which wao receive y petitioner on

August 25, 1956 (pp.1-5.Custons Records). Poti tioner then interposed the instant appeal.

Tho motion to dismiss io prenised on the theory

taat tha decinion ot tho Colloctor ot Custous datod

Scotember l9, 1955 had alroady becoao fiaal aa cr-

ecutory, Or otherwise unappoainblo. inaamuch as no

appeal from said docistan had bocn tnken within the

tiften-dny period prescribed by section l300 of tm

Revised Administrative Code, This ia the sane roasoa advanced in the deciaion appealed from.

me find this viow well taken. Pursuant to Cec-

tion l380 of the Revised Administrative Code, the

person agerieved y tho action Cr dcsicion of tho

Collector of Custons in a seiaure case may appeal

to ame to th Coamissioner of Customs within fif-

teen (l5) days from notice thoreof. The failure of

petitioner to interpooe a seasonahle appeul randers

tho Collector'g deciaioa final and conclusive and

2

C.T.A.CAS.319 RESCLUTION-

therefore, beyond the juriadietion of the Comis-

ioner cf Customs or of this Court to roview

vioe or modify.

nor the Depertnnt Head hes he rower the Burenu of Cusbons, the decision of at well, and neither cinto &Fabros.G.B.Ho.L-5612.0ct that under the present l w goveraing the Collector of Customs in a seizure cese if not nrotestod. the importer to th Comissionor of as to him. but against the Governsent ober t, l955, undracoring supplied) Suctoe to review.reviee.or modiry cuch un- appealed decision In conclusion, we find mnd hold on tine becones fna not only (sy Manvo.Ja- the Cooissioner and pnealad by

The defense ot petitionar that ho acted ume

ignorance Cr miaconception of the provisions ef law

in reoard to the time within whico to appeal, is

wo belleve, without merit. Suffice it to mentton

here the timo-honored prineiple ignorantia legis neminom excusat.As adiitional defensepetitioner

further argues that acted upon the belief that the thirty (30) dey peried within which payment under the

bond was to be made, as stated in tn last sentence of the decision of the Collector of Customs. wer the tine within which an appeal mas authorized. we do mot bolieve the Cnid statement to be misleading an to Lmply peried within which an appeal may be raised.Nowevar. granting arguendothat ame was

misleading. no statenent or opinion ef any admi-

nistrative officer can have the effect of nullify-

ing the clear anl explicit provisions of the law

which in this case is soction l300 of the Revised

3

C.T.ACASE NO319 EOGTITON

Administrative Code* (sampaguita Shoe and Slipper

Factory v. Commissioncr. C.T.A. case No. 9. Oct

ober 17,1955

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOIK, wO find the Motion

to Disnise" well-tounded and the sauo is hereby granted, For lack of jurisdiction, tho "Petition tor Roview filed by petitioner en Geptenher 22. l956, should be, it is hereby diissed, with

coots against the petitioner,

SO ODERED. Menil, January 4, 1957.

Presiding Judge MRIANG AL

WE CONCUR

1

Kaeciato Judgo AN

AU Associate Judge HOIAN LUALT Omtloa

4