CTA Case No. 3464 (Decision)

-~PtJ8UC OF 'HI� ~~ILIPPIN:r'') ~OURT OF TAX APP�AL..Q QUao.K crrr PLANTERS PRODUCTS, INC., Petitioner, - versus - C.T.A. CASE NO, 3464 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ., Respondent. X~ ~ ~ - - - - - - - - X DECISION This appeal would have for an issue an alleged erroneously classified and assessed importations effected sometime in 1976 by petitioner domestic corporation, which consequenced piyments of excess customs duties, subject of the instnnt claim for refund. Respondent invokes the jurisdictional issue, to wit: This Honorable Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the herein petition because: a) The petition does not seek the review by this Honorable Cou r t of Tax Appeals of any decision of the Commis- sioner of Customs involving liability for customs duties and fees on t.he alleged imported articles; b) The petition does not alleged nor question any decision or ruling of t he respondent Commissioner of Customs; and \ 41o

- \ DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3464 c) The jurisdiction of this Honor- able Court insofar as t he Commissioner of Customs is cortcerned, is as defined under Section 7 of R.A. ll25y pertinent portion of which is quoted as follows: Section 7. Jurisdiction The Court of Ta~ Appeals shall exercise exclusive ap~el late jurisdiction to review by appeal , as herein provided. (l) )( X X X X >< (2) Decision of the Commissioner of Customs involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges; seizure, detention or re- lease of property affected; fines, forfeiture or other penalties im- posed in relation lhereto; or other matters arising un~er Customs Law or other law administered by the Bureau of Customs; and (3) X X X XXX The records show that the decision of the Com- missjonor of Customs upon which the petition for review ought to have been based appe3rs neither here nor there , so to opeak. Petitioner has offered no reason ~� and indeed made no effort whntsoever to indicate why this pe tition could be accorded valid . ,f cognizance. Plainly, there has boen failure by petitioner to comply \'Jith Section 7, R~A. 1125, supra. 4 1 ;-� �

DECISION-~ CTA CASE NO. J464 .r � As must be expected, as the rule is settle that, jurisdiction over the subject matler is fundament3l for a court to act on a given contra- versy. It is conferred by law, not by consent of the partien. It can be challenged at any stage of the proceedings and for l&ck of it, e court can dismiss a case .�.~!" e �.�.....~.2J:.!.!.rt To in qui r e 1 n to t. he existence of jurisdiction over the subject mBU.er is the primary concern of a court, for thereon loJould depend the validity of its entire proceedings. So appearing, the objection interposed by he es- pondent Commiesioner of Customs seoms 8 l:i.ttJ.e more than a statement of obvious, We uphold, Paraphraning a U.S. Customs Court rulinq in a case of the mold as petitioner's, thiF Court does not Jesire to swallow a camel or straJn at a gnat. The short of the matter is that petitioner has created a procedural morass. And, R.A. No. 1125, is not a snare, nor does it show a fascin- ating resemblance to an illusion. Indeed, its provisions are crystal clear. To Our minds~ this Court can do little in leading petitioner out of ! \ 42G

DECISION - -� 4 - ClA CASE NO. 3464 .. ACC ORD I~GL Y ~ petition is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisd i ctio n, wi th costs. .. SO OHDEHE D .� Quezon City, Metro Manila , Jul: 15t 1987 . @!zt,~<) f E r / f\L&-J(_. Rf:. Associate Judge w�: ONCUR: