NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION v. THE TARIFF COMMISSION, MAYER STEEL CORPORATION, MKK STEEL CORPORATION, SUPREME STEEL PIPE CORPORATION, MAGNITOGORSK IRON AND STEEL WORKS and OPEN JOINT STOCK COMPANY SEVERSTA

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, -versus- C.T.A. CASE NO. 6180 THE TARIFF COMMISS IO N, MAYER STEEL CORPORATION, MKK STEEL CORPORATION, SUPREME STEEL PIPE CORPOR AT IO N, MAGNITOGORSK IRON AND STEEL WORKS and OPEN Pro mul ga te d: JOINT STOCK COMPAN Y SEVERSTA MAY 22 2001 Respondents. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X RESOLUTION At bar is a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Public Respondent Tariff Commission on December 4, 2000, on the ground that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case since the pub lic Respondent's Report on Findings assailed by the Petitioner does not impose any dumping duty. Movant believes that the Court of Tax Appeals may take cognizance of an anti- dumping case only if an anti-dumping duty has been imposed. Respondents' ratiocination hinges mainly on the provisions of s�Jbsection I of Repub lic Act No. 7843 or the Anti- Dumping Act of 1994, amending Section 30 I of the 1' ariff and Customs Code which provides, to wit: "Any aggrieved party may appeal only the amount of the dumping duty to the Court of Tax Appeals in the same manner and within the same period as provided for by law in the case of appeal from decision of the

RESOLUTION- C.T.A. CASE NO. 6180 - 2- Commissioner of Customs. The findings of fact in a dumping case shall be final and conclusive." From the above and citing as its basis the decision of the Court of Appeals in the case of Total 2000 Corporation vs. Court of Tax Appeals, et. al., CA-G.R. SP No. 42380, Februa1�y 18, 1997, where the said Court ruled that the Court of Tax Appeals does not have jurisdiction if the anti-dumping deci sion of the Secretary of Finance does not impose any dumping duty, accordingly, Respond ent concludes that the petition must be dismissed. To controvert public Respondent 's stance, Petitioner, in support of its petition relied on the provisions of Republic Act No. 8752 or the Anti-Dumping Act of 1999 which, a llegedly, is the ap plicable law since the same was already in force at the time the instant appeal was interposed . Petitioner opines that under subsection ( 1) R .A . No . 8752, a party has a right to appeal a negative finding of the Tariff Commission, thus : "In case of a negative finding by the Commission, the Secretary shall issue, after the lapse of the period for the t?etitioner to appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals, through the Secretary of Finance, an order for the Commissioner of Customs for the immediate release of the cash bond to the importer. In addition, all the parties concerned shall also be properly notified of the dismissal of the case." On the other hand , Respo ndent asserts that the applicab le provision is subsection (p) of the aforesaid law which provides, thus: (p) Judicial Review . - Any interested party in an anti-dumping investigation who is adversely affec ted by a final ruling in connection with the imposition of an anti-dumping duty may file with the Court of Tax Appeals. a petition for the review of such ruling within thirty (30) days from his receipt of notice of the final ruling: Provided, however, That the filing of such petition for review shall not in any way stop, suspend, or otherwise hold the imposition or collection, as the case may be, of the anti-

RESOLUTION- C.T.A. CASE NO. 6180 - 3- dumping duty on the imported product, co mm odity or articl e. The rul es of procedure of the co urt on the petiti on for rev iew fil ed with the Court of Tax Ap pea ls shall be appli ed. All the afo rementioned prov isions studi edl y considered. the ineluctable conclusion is that the Petition for Review must be di smi ssed. The iss ues in thi s case hav ing bee n reso lved by thi s Court 111 the case entitled National Steel Corporation vs. Tariff Com miss ion, et. al., CTA Case No. 6140, January 15, 2001, We see no cogent reason at thi s point to dev iate from, much less di sregard what We have already elaborated upon, and We quote thu s: "We opine that the main thrust of subsecti on (I) is th e iss uance of an order by the Secretary for the release of the cash bond aft er a negative findin g. The ri ght to appeal from a negati ve findin g cannot simply be inferred from the mere mention of the phrases "in case of a negati ve finding by the Commi ss ion" and "aft er the lapse of the peri od for the petition to appea l to the Co urt ofTax Appea ls". The reference to the peri od to appea l to the CTA is simpl y to prov ide for a reckoning peri od for the Secretary to iss ue an Order for the Co mmi ss ioner of Customs to immedi ately release th e cash bond to the importers in case of a negati ve findin g by the Commi ss ion. Whereas in case of a fin al affirm ati ve determinati on by the Co mmi ss ion, the Secretary is mandated to order the impos iti on of the anti-dumping duty through a Department Order as we ll as to apply the cas h bond , if any, to the said dumping duty. On the other hand , subsecti on (p) prov id es for a more direct and unequi vocal authority on when judici al appea l to the CTA is proper as compared to the mere collateral citati on in subsecti on (I ). It must be pointed out that the ri ght to appeal , being a mere statutory right, ca nnot be simpl y based on mere impli cati ons. The prov ision of subsecti on (p) is quite clear. Thus, onl y a part y who is adverse ly affected by a fin al ruling in co nnecti on with the impos iti on of an anti-dumping duty may fil e a petiti on for rev iew with the CTA. Co nsidering that in the case at bar no anti -dumpin g duty was imposed. filin g a petiti on for review with the CTA is not proper. To put it di fferentl y, the CTA has no juri sdi cti on to entertain the sa me.

R ESOL UTIO N - C. T.A. CAS E NO . 6180 - 4- The rati onale for defining limits upon the juri sdi cti on of the CTA on appea ls from dum ping dec isions is anchored on the recogni tion by law of the presumed ex pertise of the in vesti gatin g/dec iding authority in the dumping case . lt is likewise wo rth stress ing at thi s point that Republi c Act No . 11 25, An Act Creating the Co urt of Tax Appea ls. vested the CTA jurisdi cti on over the followin g: SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. - The Co urt of Tax Appea ls shall exerci se exclusive appell ate juri sdiction to rev iew by appea l, as herein prov ided - ( I) Dec isions of the Commi ss ioner of Internal Revenue in cases invo lving di sputed assess ment, refund s of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, pe nalti es imposed in relati on thereto. or other matters ari sing under the Nati onal Internal Revenue Code or other law or part of law admini stered by the Bureau of Internal Reve nu e; (2) Dec isions of the Co mmi ss ioner of Customs in cases in vo lving liability fo r customs duti es. fees or other money charges; se izure, detention or re lease of prope rty affected; fin es, forfe itures or other penalti es imposed in relati on thereto; or other matters ari sing under the Customs law or other law or part of law admini stered by the Bureau of Customs; and XXX XXX XXX R.A. No . 11 25 created a spec ial co urt to rev iew on the subj ect matters above enumerated. Now, to adopt Petiti oner's view wo uld mean that the Anti-Dumping Act of 1999 enl arges CTA's juri sdi cti on as it will no w rev iew the findin gs of the Tariff Co mmi ss ion regardl ess of whether a dumping duty is imposed or not. We hold that that is not the intendment of the law. Acco rdingly, it is more logica l to conclude that the CTA has juri sdicti on onl y in cases \,vhen a clumping dut y is imposed wherein it can re-co mpute or rev iew the amount so imposed. l Stated otherwise, the juri sdi cti on of thi s Co urt is not onl y limited to ~~ decision s of the Commissioner of Intern al Revenue and Co mmi ss ioner of ij l I I J I i l

RESOLUT I ON - C.T.A . C A SE NO . 6180 -5- Custom s, as me nti oned in R.A. 11 25 (The Law Creatin g the Court of Tax Appeals), but a lso includes dec isions of the Sec retary of F inance in certa in cases as clearl y provided fo r in Section 2315 of PO 1464, otherwise known as T he Tariff and C usto ms Code of the P hili ppines (TCC P). T he j uri sdi cti on of thi s Co urt was likew ise ex panded by Secti on 30 I of the TCC P as ame nded by R.A . 8752 (The A nti-l) umpi ng Ac t of 1999). Paragrap h (p) of said Sectio n 30 1 of the TCCP, as amend ed, prov ides that any party adverse ly affected by a fi na l rulin g in co nn ection w ith the impos iti on of an anti-dumping du ty may fi le a petiti on fo r rev iew w ith thi s Co urt. S ince in the case at bar it was not di sputed that no anti-dumping duty has bee n imposed, the Co urt has no juri sdi cti on over the instant case. Fi nall y, bas ic is th e rul e that all parts of the statute a re to be harm oni zed and reco nc il ed so th at effect may be give n to each and every part th ereof. Neverthe less, ass um ing that there exists a rea l co nfli ct betwee n s ubsect ions (I) and (p), We co ncur w ith th e Pu blic Respo nd ent that the doubt should be reso lve in favo r of the latter beca use it has bee n he ld th at th e prov ision last in order of positi on w ill prevail as be ing the latest expressio n of th e intent of the legislat ion. (A renas vs . C ity of San Carl os, 82 SCRA 3 18) . Moreover, w hen one prov isio n or secti on of a stat ute treats speciall y a nd so le ly of a matter, that secti on or prov ision prevail s over other secti ons to w hic h only incidenta l refere nce is mac:e thereto. (Hand book on Statutory Co nstru cti on, Martin , 5th ed ., p. 148) ." IN VIEW OF ALL T HE F OREG OI NG, the instant Peti tion fo r Rev iew 1s here by DISMISSE D for lack ofj uri sd iction. SO ORDER E D. ~t; .c~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Judge