GOLDMINE RICE MARKETING, represented by its Proprietor/General Manager, MR. ORLANDO C. MANUNTAG v. HON. DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area, Manila; and HON. REY LEONARDO GUERERRO, Commissioner of Customs, South Harbor, Port Area, Manila

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY FIRST DIVISION GOLDMINE RICE CTA Case No. 10600 MARKETING, represented by its Proprietor/General Manager, MR. ORLANDO C. MANUNTAG, Petitioner, -versus- Members: HON. DISTRICT DEL ROSARIO, PJ, Chairperson MANAHAN, and COLLECTOR OF REYES-FAJARDO lL CUSTOMS, Port of MICP, North Harbor, Port Area, Manila and HON. REY LEONARDO Promulgated: GUERRERO, Commissioner DEC 16 ~ 9;lSt>- of Customs, Sou th Harbor, Port Area, Manila, Respondents. X----------------------- - --- - --- - ------------------ -X RESOLUTION The following statements are alleged in petitioner's Petition for Duty and Tax Refund, to wit: Petitioner is a sole proprietorship duly registered and existing under Philippine laws with office address at Lot 13, Block 17, Unit 1 Blessed Building, Marcos Alvarez Avenue, Talon Singko, Las Pinas City. On June 3, 2021, petitioner instituted a Protest and Appeal for Duty and Tax Refund to the office of respondent Commissioner of Customs (COC), praying for the refund, drawback or credit, 0000L025

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10600 reduction, adjustment, abatement, settlement, or compromise of excess charges of customs duty and/or tax collected from petitioner on its rice shipments. According to petitioner, the valuation made by the Manila International Container Port (MICP) Collection District Officer leading to the collection of duties and taxes against its rice shipments was erroneous as it failed to follow the Transaction Value System under Section 701 of RA No. 10863,1 as shown in the following table: Invoice No. B/LNo. Entry No. Vessel & Details of Customs Duty Alleged correct Amount 208781699 C-143157 Registry Importations imposed by MICP Customs Duty purportedly CI- Collection District per petitioner overcharged by 132(8)/ ANT/ No. 2021 Officer pursuant to MICP Section 701, RA Collection HANSA 10,400 bags p 3,441,192.83 District Officer COBURG at No.10863 p 447,547.15 115N, Reg. 50kgs./bag p 2,993,645.68 No. Myanmar MSK0062- White Rice 21 Emata 5% Broken. Thus, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Duty and Tax Refund on July 28, 2021 to the Court. This case merits outright dismissal. Section 7(a)(4) of Republic Act (RA) No. 1125, as amended by RA No. 92822 provides that the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) exercises exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of respondent COC relating to liability for customs duties, fees, and other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs, thus: Sec. 7. Jurisdiction.- The CTA shall exercise: Customs Modernization and Tariff Act. 2 AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 0000t026

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10600 a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: XXX XXX XXX 4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs; XXX XXX XXX. To implement the above provision, Section 3(a)(4), Rule 4 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA) mirrors Section 7(a)(4) of RA No. 1125, as amended by RA No. 9282 in this wise: RULE4 JURISDICTION OF THE COURT SEC. 3. Cases within the jurisdiction of the Court in Divisions. - The Court in Divisions shall exercise: (a) Exclusive original or appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal the following: XXX XXX XXX (4) Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures of other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs; XXX XXX XXX. The nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the complaint determines the jurisdiction of the Court. OOOOL02i

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10600 The averments therein and the character of the relief sought are the ones to be consulted.3 A scrutiny of petitioner's Petition for Duty and Tax Refund reveals that: first, it submitted a protest and appeal for duty and tax refund to the respondent COC on June 3, 2021; 4 and second, the instant Petition was filed on July 28, 2021 by reason of respondents' inaction on its protest and appeal for duty and tax refund for a palpable lapse of time.5 Since the present action is premised on the inaction, and not the decision of respondent COC on its claim for duty and tax refund, the Court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate the present case on the strength of Section 7(a)(4), RA No. 1125 as amended by RA No. 9282, as implemented by Section 3(a)(4), Rule 4 of the RRCTA. Note that when a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, such as the instant case, the only power it has is to dismiss the action, as any act it performs without jurisdiction is null and void.6 Even assuming that the Court has jurisdiction over this case, the same shall be dismissed for petitioner's non-compliance with Sections 4 and 6, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court, namely: first, failure to specify the names of its witnesses in the Petition and attach their corresponding judicial affidavits; and second, the verification and certification of non-forum shopping appended to the instant Petition does not contain the required statements under the rule and was unsigned. WHEREFORE, the Petition for Duty and Tax Refund filed on July 28, 2021 by Goldmine Rice Marketing, represented by its Proprietor/General Manager, Mr. Orlando C. Manuntag is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction and for non-compliance with Sections 4 and 6, Rule 7 of the Revised Rules of Court. SO ORDERED. Presiding Justice 3 Pad/an v. Dinglasan, G.R. No. 180321, March 20, 2013; and Fort Bonifacio Development Corporation v. Domingo, G.R. No. 180765, February 27, 2009. 4 Par. 2, Petitioner's Petition for Duty and Tax Refund. 5 Par. 4, ibid. 6 Bilag v. Ay-Ay, G.R. No. 189950, April24, 2017. OOOOL02&

RESOLUTION CTA Case No. 10600 7 oh t t'~� .~ ~ .r~ CATHERINE T. MANAHAN ~ MARIAN I~ F. REY~S-FAYARDO Associate Justice Associate Justice f: 000L02!:1