CTA Case No. 61 (Resolution)

RE PUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Cv U.kT OF TAX APPEALS MAN ILA ESTANISLAO LEUTERIO, Petitioner, - versus - C.T.A. CASE NO. 61 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOHS, Respondent. x~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x RE S 0 L UT I 0 N The petitioner, by motion filed on May 11, 1955, has asked this Court to reconsider its resolution dated May 3, 1955, dismissing the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. In his petition for review, the petitioner seeks a review of the decision of the respondent Commissioner of CUStoms dated November 16, 1954, which affirmed on appeal the decision of the Collector of Customs for the Port of ~anila in Seizure Identification No. 1894, de- creeing the forfe i ture of 500 crates of onions. The petitioner received the said decision of the Commis- sioner on November 20, 1954. On December 20, 1954, or on the thirtieth day from the date of receipt of the said decision qy petitioner, the respondent Commissioner approved an offer of redemption qy the petitioner in accordance with Section 1388 of the Revised Administra- tive Code . ~ virtue of this redemption, the petitioner paid unto the respondent on December 22, 1954 the re- demption price of ~4, 564 . 50, and the petitioner with- - - - �-:- drew from customs custoqy the said 500 crates of onions.

RESOLUTION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 61 - 2- Under Section 1389 of the P~vised Administrative Code, in order that the petitioner can test the validity of the seizure proceedings, the petitioner as the party effecting the redemption, must make formal protest, whi ch the petitioner actually filed with the respon- dent within the fifteen-day period after payment of the redemption price. Pursuant to the la�st cited pro- vision, the proceedings shall thereafter "take the same course as in ordinar,y cases against customs duties and charges generally". Upon the exercise by the petitioner of the redemp- tion authorized in said section 1388 (Rev. Adm. Code), � the sej_zure case (Identification No . 1894) was in effect terminated as such, and the same cannot be brought on appeal to this Court. The protest case filed by petitioner has to take its course under-section 1389 in relation to sections 1370-1385, inclusive, of the Revised Administra- tive Code. There being no action of the Commissioner thereto, at this stage, no appeal could be taken to this Court, the matter being premature. We t herefore hold that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the pre- sent case. FOR ALL TH'"" FOREGOnm, we find the Hotion for Ra- consideration, filed by petitioner, without merit, and the same is hereby denied. SO ORDERED. Manila, July 23, 1955. /. N~LE�-, Presid!ng Judge