CTA Case No. 991 (Resolution)

( ; .r�~'BLTC OJr TTm PillLIPPll'. ~li � . 0F T:.' APP~ 1\JEG 0 I'J\VIGATIQ-.. COo 1 If oJ C. T. � Petitioner , CASE 1--IO. 991 - versus - C �v ISSIO' Erl OF CUSTOYlS , LEVIE IO C'PA ~ and COLLECTO OF CU6TCNi~ OF ILOILO, PEL.O G. VILLAfVErlTE , rle s pondents . X- - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - X E L 'O LUTIOl~ This refers to the motion of the respondents s ee ing the dismissal of the petition for review on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to entert�{n the said petition . C;ne records show that in a letter dated July 10, 1958 (p. 3p Customs reco ) , the ctin g Collector of Custrnns for the port of Iloilo demanded from the petitioner the payment of the sum of 19,601.92 a s storage c harges on 2 marine engines which ha ve been stored at Muelle Looney since \l ovember 29, 1956o The petitioner requested reconsideration of this demand in his letter dated July 16, 1958 ( PP o 4-6, Customs reco)G In an indorsement dated July 22, 1958 (Po 7, Customs reco), the Collector of Customs for the port of Iloil o requested the Commissioner of Customs for information as to whether or not the engine s in ques- tion may be consider ed coa stwise c argo for purposes of a ssessing and collectin g storage charge s under Sec-

ESOLUTIO' - ~.T.A. CASE �oo 991 � 2- tion 3001 (sic) ( k) of the Tariff and Customs Code . In reply therato, the Commissioner 1 in hi s 2nd In - dorsement of ovember 21 R 1958 ( p. 8g Customs rec . ) 1 informed the Collector that "the articles , subj ct matter of the preceding indorsement , may be consi- dered as cargo in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court in the c ase of United States vso Steam- ship Rubi, 32 PhiL 228, x x x, n and directed the lat- ter to col lect the storage c harges on the marine en- gines in questiono Pursuant to the said opinion and directive R the Acting Collector of Customs for Iloilo demanded the payment of storage charges in the reduced amount of ~l9 1 215o84 (p. 9 , Customs rec . ) . gain , the petitioner requested that this demand for payment be reconsidered (pp. 10-l?r Customs rec. � This re- quest for reconsideration wa s referred by the Collector to the Commissioner of Customs (po 26, Customs reco) , who found nno basis for chan ging its (his) ruling of ovember 21, 1958,fl and again directed the former to collect the storage charges ( p. 27 1 Customs rec.) . Consequently, the Collector, in his letter of Novem- ber 28 , 1960.9 demanded of the petitioner the payment within 10 days from receipt thereof of liquidated .J storage c harges amounting to �-19 , 601.92 (p. 28, Cus - toms rec . ) Hence, the inst�nt appe�l. Upon the r ationale that the petitioner did not appeal the decision of the Collector of Customs of Iloilo to the Commissioner of Customs 1 and therefore, there is at pre sent no decision of the latter official

RESOLUTI CN - ~ C. T. � CASE 1'-lOo 991 ' .. - 3- whi9h may be re v iewed 1 the re s pondent s c ontend that thi s Court ha s no jurisdiction to enter tain �the pre - sent petition for review. .. .� ve f i nd the r e s pondents ' c ontention mer-itor iou s. � \ What i s being ~ c t u ally appealed �to u s i s the dec i s ion � of the Collec tor of Customs for the port of Iloilo impo s ing storage c harges on the marine engines in ques - tion o As a matt~r of fa ci , the variou s demand s for payment of the c harge s were signed either by the Col- lector or the cting Collectoro Moreover , the peti- tioner neither protested su c h ruling or de c ision nor gave written notice to the Collector of his de s ire to ha ve the matter r e viewed by the Commi ssione r of Cus - tom so\ 3ut , the ~pe.ti t ione'r argues that the fir st and only dec i s ion r ender ed in this matter of storage fees from whic h the pre sent appeal was inter posed i s that c ontained in the 2nd Indorsement of the Commis sioner of Customs � dated November 21 , 1956 . In this c onnec- tion j it must be noted th~t prior to the said indor s e - ment , the Collector has already demanded of the peti- � tioner the payment of storage charges . \ The fact' that the opinion of the Commissioner relative to the peti- tioneris liability for storage fee s coincide s with that of the Collector did not convert the latter opinion into that of the Commis s ioner , for 11 the ac tion of the Commis - s ioner a s regard s matter s referred to him by the Col- le c tor was only supervisory in nature and his c onformity

1�E. SrO.L.UTI. ::; 0 o 991 -4 - or disagreement to the rulings of the latter oes not transform s~id de c isions into t at of the Commis sion r . v ( ampaguita ~hoe Slipper Fac tory vso Commission~r , t alo , G. l o :o. L-10285, Janu ry 14 , 1958 . ) nd u in - dep ndently of t e opinion of Commission r on matters brought to his attention for ~dvise oy t e Collec tor , the parties there o still ave the right to appeal the c ontrov rsy to him for the proper determin~tion of is 0 i C � (Ioid� It ~ppearing that the petitioner failed to ~ppeal the c ision of the ollector of ustoms for the port of Iloilo to th ommissioner of ustoms , we find that this ourt has no �urisdic tion over the instant petition or evi Wo HEtiEF , the petition for review filed o Dec - r j" 1960 is ereoy dismi sed , Jith costs against t e petition ro ~nil ~ , iVarc h 29 , 196L I 0 'U : r sidin udg I ~ ~ BL � did not take p~rt o