CTA Case No. 2470 (Resolution)

� � REPUBUr. OF THK PlilLJPPrNE�S COURT OF TAX APPE.Al..S Of;U.ON CITY CO~WANIA GENERAL DE T.\BACOS DB f'I.LIPINAS, in ito capacity as ag nt of the SS Lexa t�� e r sk", Petitioner , - versus - C.T.A . CASE NO . 2470 TilE CO -t~ISSIO~ER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent. X- - --- -- - - �- - -- - -X RE S 0 L UT I 0 N The Court finds no merit in petitioner's "t�lotion For Leav~ To File Amended Pet.ition For Reviewft filed on iiov mber :t!S, 1970 and ... ust, ins respondent's wopposition To Amend and/or Motion 'l.'o Dismiss 11 fileJ on July 11, 1979. 'l'he records show that the .. rty ':.191' ieved or adversely a-ffected by t .he decision o~ respo!l- dent Commissioner of customs dated November 17 , 1972 (in Customs Case No. 72-2..)), which -affirmed that of the Collector of Cust.:oms dated Septei<ber 29, 1971 {in S . I. No. 11784), deer eing the for- feiture of tho 20 caseG uf the untaxed and uruna- nifestod ci c ar~.t es .found on board the vessel Lexa Haersk, !a not the he.rein petitioner Campania General de Tabacos de Filipinas but the

RESOLUTION - ~ CTA E N' � 2470 - 2- i' & I Club , t.h � owner of i<l .ar t i cles .. In fact , in the sei~uce � I:OC ing ( � I .. No� 11714) in t ut.e by th U,t u of Cu t - 9 inst the ' su j ot rahan 1 I it w s tbe 1J I Club, illS own .r nd cl 1 nt ai� icl I uhich ~ 130 r pa.tty-re: pond nt, and nowhore doe it ppear in ~ of th Coll etor, or - in th d ci ion of the C is ion r of Cu tom th .t petitioner Compan a General e Xab cos d Pil inas w m d li le 0 any omini tra ive P n lty .. conneq ntly, vh n Co ania G ner 1 d ' b co FUi pinaa iled h �i i o for r view in Uhis c e, it ha nei tb r th personality or al c p ci�y t i tit te b i p tit.ion or al, nor o u o of etion gainat th co is i ner of custo s . li ce-, th a i<l pe ition for r view cannot be t ken cogni nc by thi Court p~rsuant to th jurisietional requirement f - ction l l o h public t t; o . 11~5 hat:

� R.ESOLU'l'lON - C'l'A CASE t 10 . 2470 -� 3 - in the Couxt of Tax Appeals within thirty d y a ter th receipt of such decision or ruling. XX XXX As hela by tbis Court., the �party adversely affected" by the decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs �ref xs to hose persons, associations or cor ora ion ho e ~roprietary or cuniary int rests ara adversely af ected by the decision of the official me1 tionad. 6 (Hutual Security Insurance Corp. 11s. comm. o customs, C.'.l'.A. Case (Res.) �o. 96 , Feb. 15, 1961.) And a "1:ar y aggrieve " r f. rs to the O\mer or importer of ~1 e ar tiel subject to duty or forfeiture and who is adversely affected by the d~cision orr ling of the Co.missioner of Customs . (Actg. Collector of Customs vs. Actg . conmissioner o customs, 102 Phil . 244.) . Finally, it is to be st ted that a party who is not the importer or O\mer of the property involved can- not at�f'e 1 to th � s Court . (Plywo d Industr ie::3 vs . Co �u:aissioncr of Customs, c . �r. A. Case No. 72, .,ovember 25, 1955; Echaves vs. Commissioner .�.r. . of Cutrtoms, C Cas ho . lOS, May 15, 1959.} Siace compa~ia ~eneral de Tabacos has no JO ..l. ;.:j

P..ESOLUTION - CTA CASE O. 2470 - 4- legal r onality to institut the instant appe 1 nd the Court has no jurisdiction to tako cog- niz nee of i pp al, th r. otion to wit n the tition for r evi w o cur th t juris ictional defect by the simple �Xf d i n t o~ its substitution by the P & I Club as party- titioner c nnot legally be ent r ined r gran e by t his Court. Of cour e, th � ~.end t~t ion For Revic � file n ;_ r h 12, 19' ( e V� ;)5, �~~ r . ) , wher in the tition r now a.poar~ to tho P & I Club (th~ party aaver ly i ecte by th~ d cision o he ros ..ond nt Comrnis ion r of Cuot J), and assu~1ny arguen o �n � fithou ci ing that thiQ may b ~ro~crly tro ate d as 1 entirely net nd in cperw n tition for rcvic1, a~d not merely as an amenae�l petitio. f r review , 'C believe that tho sai 4 J\;:t::ition for r vie �1 of petitioner P & I Club is alrea~y til a out of time beca\.IS ~ th dcci~ion of t 10 l!o.mnission r of Custo s 1as received by its cou.. ncl on D c . ber 11, 1972 { � 264, Custods r c.), a wa fil � in thic Court. or ly on �� rch 12, 1979, OJ: t r the laps o ore n n si (6) yenrs (p. 1, C. 'l � � rec.} . 1�1 Lourt s, l i a wia , th re orll no jurisdiction to ntertai t.he &iu �-- � ' '

t~SOLU'riOI: - CTA CASE 10 . 2470 - 5- mended p tition for review. The law (section ll of Republic Act 'lo . 1125), as heretofore quoted, pr scribes on~y ... p rio<l of thirty (30) days within �which the rty adversely affected by the d cision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs may ppeal to thi Court ftor t r ceipt of s id d cision or ruling, an� such r equirement is jurisdictional and non-extendable. (See Campania Maritima vs. Actg. Commisoioner of cu toms , c . T.A. Case No. 2492, October 14, 1975.) - �m:;R.EFO'RE , the "r.!otion l'o Pil Amenaed P tition or .evic u filed by Compania �cneral Tabaco .l?'ilipinas on �ovember 25, 1978 is i hereoy iomisse for lac� o juri icti 1. QLtezon City, ril 15, 1982. ~~ iding Judge ~~~ . sociate Jual,Je r-~ ~ �.t �'