VICTOR R. DEL ROSARIO RICE MILL CORPORATION v. HON. REY LEONARDO B. GUERRERO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ATTY. ERASTUS SANDINO AUSTRIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MANILA INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER PORT, AND THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Court of Tax Appeals QUEZON CITY En Bane VICTOR R. DEL ROSARIO RICE CTA EB NO. 2731 MILL CORPORATION, (CTA Case No. 10082) Petitioner, Present: -versus- DEL ROSARIO, P.J., RINGPIS-LIBAN, HON. REY LEONARDO B. MANAHAN, GUERRERO, IN HIS OFFICIAL BACORRO-VILLENA, CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, OF CUSTOMS, ATTY. ERASTUS REYES-FAJARDO, SANDINO AUSTRIA, IN HIS CUI-DAVID, OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS FERRER-FLORES, and DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MANILA ANGELES, JJ. INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER PORT, AND THE BUREAU OF Promulgated: CUSTOMS, Respondents. X ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------- RESOLUTION MODESTO-SAN PEDRO, J.: Before the Court is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 18 July 2024), filed on August 2, 2024, with respondents' Comment (on the Motion for Reconsideration dated July 18, 2024), filed via registered mail on September 9, 2024. Petitioner assails the Decision of this Court, dated July 18, 2024, which denied its Petition for Review for lack of merit. The Motion lacks merit as well. Petitioner's first argument is that Customs Memorandum Order ("CMO") No. 17-2019 is inapplicable to its case as the same was issued on April 15, 20 19, whereas the goods were declared abandoned prior to that date. / However, it does not explain why the date on which the goods were declared~

RESOUTIO~ CTA LB ~o. 2731(CTA Cas.: No. l0082l Page 2 of3 abandoned is relevant here. It is silent on the Court En Bane's observation that the Decrees of Abandonment had yet to attain finality when RMO No. 17- 2019 was issued. More importantly, it does not explain why the date on which the goods were declared abandoned is controlling here and not the date of the issuance ofthe Consolidated Order on May 2, 2019, when the procedural issue here involves said Consolidated Order specifically. The argument consequently holds no water. Petitioner's additional argument that the Consolidated Order is a ruling on its Letter-Appeal is similarly silent on the absence of any mention of the latter in said Order. As such, it fails as well. Petitioner's second argument misunderstands Our ruling, claiming that the Court En Bane characterized it as a regular importer due to the number of Motions it filed. This is patently false. Our finding that petitioner is a regular importer was based on the number of shipments involved in the case, as well as the testimony of its own witness, Wally C. Maniego. 1 We later concluded that petitioner was aware of the assessment due to its repeated claim that the values of its importation were appraised higher than the real transaction value, a claim it uniformly raised across its Motions to Set Aside/Recall. The logic here is that petitioner could not have repeatedly claimed that the assessment against it was erroneous if it was not aware ofsuch assessment. Neither this nor Our finding that petitioner is a regular carrier is based on a mere number of motions. Since the argument misconstrues Our reasoning and targets an idea We never raised to begin with, it fails as well. Petitioner's third and final argument is that its advance payment of custom duties was already debited from its account and credited to that of the Bureau of Customs ("BOC"). However, this still does not address the Court En Bane's finding that the amounts debited were merely eatmarked for future payments and that the crediting to the BOC' s account would only be processed after the issuance of assessment notices. The argument seems to once again be wielded against a misunderstanding or oversimplification of the actual reasons discussed in the Decision. In any case, the argument is based purely on the testimony of petitioner's witness and still lacks sufficient evidence to support it, such as the lists of shipments processed for payment, with the relevant single administrative documents, mentioned by petitioner's own witness. The argument is thus insufficient to prove that petitioner did, indeed, duly pay the custom duties and taxes at issue. In summary, then, the Motion fails to substantially challenge Our ruling, which consequently must be retained. ACCORDINGLY, the instant Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated 18 J1j}J'- 2024), filed on August 2, 2024, is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.,......., Decision. dated July 18. 2024. p. 15. Rollo. p. 260.

RESOUTIO:\ CTA F.B ~o.273 ](CTA Case No. 10082) Pagc3of3 SO ORDERED. MARIA RoWEN I As WE CONCUR: (Inhibited) ROMAN G. DEL ROSARIO Presiding Justice rA, ~ -, '------ MA. BELEN M. RINGPIS-LIBAN Associate Justice ~' ;r. ~�-~..______ _ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN Associate Justice \ LENA ~ ~ F. ~ -fa.,�a...~ MARIAN IVn. REYifS-FAJARDO Associate Justice LA~!ur-~t VID Associate Justice HENRY j}�NGELES Associate Justice