CTA Case No. 761 (Resolution)

1\UU.tSLlt; O.fl' THE PHILlPPlNJ:'!i COURT OF TAX APP~ .; M.ANlU . T C� � A. ASTURIAS SUGAR CE.t TML 1 INC., SE NOo 761 Petitioner, - versus - THE OON ISSIONE..l{ OF OJSTOviS and THE LLE OR F CUS10 viS F HE roR OF IlOILO t � ~ espondents. X~ � � � � � � - � - � - � � X H.ESOLUTION This refers to the motion to dismiss filed by res- pondents, dated April 27, 1960, of the petition for re- view on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. On March 21, 19581 petitioner paid under pr otest the sums of 11 , 912. 82 and ~16, 716.00 to the respondent Collector of Customs for the Port of Iloilo, as customs duties and special import tax on jute bags (not yet re - exported) imported for its use as containers in the mill- ing and production of centrifugal sugar, which shipments were declared under Import Entry Noo 48 1 dated January 8, 1957, and Import Entry No . 243, dated February 8~ 1957 (pp. 1 & 21 Petition for Review; p. 1 , Annex , Petition) . These payments are evidenced by Official Receipts Nos . B- 115682 and B- 115683. On April 10 , 1958 1 petitioner demanded the refund of said amounts which was denied by the respondent Collector in a decision, dated January 21 1 � 1960, in the case entitled "In re Protest No . 15 filed by Asturias Sugar Central, Inco against payment of customs duties and spec ial import tax on jute bags imported under

H.EOOLU IO :-J - C.I.A. CASE NO . 761 - 2- Import Entries Nos ., 48 and 243o 11 (See Annex A, Petition for eview o) One copy of this decision was received by the petitioner on January 22~ l960P and on the same date it filed its notice of appeal from said decision to the Commissioner of Customs of Manilao Pending decision on this appealt and fearing that its right to claim for re - fund would prescribe under Section 306 of the Tax Code 1 should the respondent Commissioner not decide the appeal immediately7 petitioner filed the present petition for review on March 18 , 1960. The only issue raised is whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of this case, it ap- pearing of record that the appeal taken by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Customs from the decision of the Collector of Customs of Iloilo is still pending decision by the former. For ready reference,the provisions of Sections? and ll of epublic Act No. 1125$ creating the Court of Tax ppeals, delineating the jurisdiction of this -Court is hereby reproducedz to wita 1SEC . 7. Jurisdiction . - The Court of Tax � ppeals shall exercise exclusive appellate juris� diction to review by appeal 1 as herein provided -- v(l) Decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessmentst refunds of internal revenue taxes , fees or other charges , penalties imposed in relation theretot or other matters arising under the r ational In- ternal Revenue Code or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; 11 ( 2) Decisions of the Commissioner of Cus - toms in cases involving liability for customs duties , fees or other money charges , seizure , detention or release of property affected; fines ~ '' "i;._...'. <~;..:;,

l ESOLUTIO C.I. A. C�SE U. 761 - 3- forfeiture or other penalties imposed in re - lation thereto; or other matters arising under the Cu s toms law or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau of Cu stoms; and �lt 3) De c isions of provinc ial or c ity Boarg _of Assessment Appeals in cases involv~ ing the assessment and taxation of real pro- perty or other matters arising under the As- sessment Law, inc luding rules and regulations relative thereto. n ~ c. l l. Who may appeal; effect of ap- peal. - Any person , assoc iation or c orporation adversely affected-by a dec ision or ruling of the Collector of Internal evenue� the Collec- tor of Customs or any rrovinc ial or c ity Board of As sessment Appeal s may file an appeal in the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty days after the receipt of suc h dec ision or rulingo ~N o appeal taken to the Co~rt of Tax Ap- peals .. from the dec ision or ruling of the Col- lector of Internal � evenue or the Collector of Cu stoms shall sus pend the payment , levy, dis- traint and/or s ale of any property of the tax- payer for "the s atisfaction of his tax liability as provided by existing law; Pr ovided; however ; That when in the opinion of the Court the c ol- lection by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Commissioner of Cu stoms may jeopardize the intere st of the Government and/or the taxpayer the Cour t at any stage of the proceeding may suspend the s aid collection and require the taxpayer either to deposit the amount c laimed or to file a surety bond for not more than double the amount with the Court . ~ (Under - lining supplieda) _ In the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in the c ase of Rufino Lopez & ons 1 Inc~ vso The Court of Tax Appeals~ Go R. No . L-9274~ Febr uary l t 1957� the simple facts of which are in all fours with the present 1 and wherein the petitioner in that c aset like in the ins- tant case , appealed directly to this Court from the dec i - sion of the Collector of Cu stoms without fir st coursing his appeal to and awaiting the decision of the Commissioner of ustoms 1 it was held that under Section 7 of Republic Act

RESOLUTION - CoT .A. CASE NO. 764 - 4- Noo 1125j this Court has exclusive appellate jurisdic- tion to review by appeal decisions of the Collector of Internal Revenue, decisions of the Commissioner of Cus- toms and decisions of provincial or city Board of Assess- ment Appeals on cases mentioned in said section; that the apparently conf l icting provisions of said Act 1125 (Sec- tions 7 and 11) should be harmonized and reconciled if possible, in order to give effect to the whole act; that �1 it is more reasonable and logical to hold that in Sec- tion 11 of the Act, the Legislature meant and intended to say., the Commissioner of Customs instead of Collector of Customs in the first paragraph and the first part of the second paragraph of said section~v and that it is within the province of the courts to correct and rectify a manifest and obvious clerical error in the wording of a sta� tute to give due course and carry out the evident in- tention of Congress (see Acting Collector of Customs vs. Commissioner of Customs, C.I.A. Case Noo 17, Resolution dated May 231 1955). Hence, only decisions of the Com� missioner of Customs, Collector of Internal Revenue~ and provincial or city Board of Assessment Appeals;- are ap- pealable to this Courto Consequently, inasmuch as in t he instant case, the appeal taken by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Customs from the decision of the Collector of Customs of Iloilo, is still pending be f ore the former, the filing of the present petition for review is premature. '' Petitioner however claims that it filed its present petition for review for f ear that it would lose its right

RESOllJTION - C. I . A. CASE NO o 761 - 5- to c laim for refund s hould the Commiss ioner �of Customs not decide its appeal in time to enable it to file its action before this Court within the two- year period pre scribed in Section 306 of the Tax Code . It justi- fies its present action with the ruling of the Supr eme Court in the c ases of P o J . Kiener Company ~ Ltd . vso aturnino David1 49 . G. p . 1852, and Allis on J o Gibbs, et al o vso Collector of Internal Revenue and Court of Tax Appeals , Go R. No . L- 13453, February 29 , 1960 1 where it was held that the c laimant for refund need not wait for the dec ision of the offic ial to whom the c laim for ,, _ 1 r efund is directed, but proceed to .file his c as e within the two - year period . The c a ses c ited refer to internal revenue taxes and not to customs dutie so ~There is nothing in the Tax Code whic h provides � that these provisions shall also be applic able to cus- toms duties or c harges imposed under the Customs Law . On the contrary, the Revised ~.dministrative Code , in Chapter O<X, Article II , Sections 13CO and 1301 (now Sections 1707 and 1708 , Tariff and Customs Code) , contains specific provisions as to the time and manner of filing claims for refund of customs dutieso These provisions in the old dministrative Code and the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines show that the provisions of Sec- tions 306 and 309 of the National Internal Revenue Code on refund of internal revenue taxes erroneou s ly and ille - gally c ollected do not apply to customs duties . '~

T � 761 - 6- Il VI F WING IO ' , the peti- ti n for revie is hereoy dismissed without prejudice, without pronouncement as to costs. 0 tanila, June 6, 1960. --� residingI Judge I QJ rlO '.J M. UMALI ssociate Judge ss ociate Judge AUGU T r � LUCI is on leave. t,/1