CTA Case No. 2492 (Decision)

I REPURIJC OF THE PHILIPP) ~EB CoURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEzpN CI1'Y CONl)AI~T~ HfutU TD'A , C.T .A. CASE NO . 2492 Petitioner, versus ACTING CQ111MISSIOI\IEH OF CUSTOHS I'tespondent . X- - - - - - - - - X DE C I S I 0 N This is� an appeal from the decision of the re- spondent dated December 29 , 1972, in Customs Case No . 70- 2 O~anila S . I . No . 11150), declaring the forfeiture of one ( 1) Unit used Linkbelt }~odel 78 Crawler Crane and two (2) Units Yale Forklift for alleged violation of Section 2530(m-1 and 5) of the Tariff and Customs Code . The facts , as stated in the decision sought to be reviewed are as follows: 1. That one (1) Unit Linkbelt Crane and two (2) units Yal:f!. Forklifts, consigned to one Ant onio Aquino c/o Gatevvay :V.tachinery & Equipment Corporation , arrived at the Por.t of Hanila on July 18 , 1967 ax S/S 11Lingayen ' Guli' 11 � 2. That consignee Antonio aquino was found upon investigation to be a non- 0xistent fictitious person; 3 . That the carrying vessel is ovmed and operated by the ~mritime Company of the Philip- pines; 4 . That Naritime Company of the Philip- pines is a sister company of Compafiia Haritima , claimant in this case;

DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 2492 2 � 5. That while the equipment were in transit , they were sold by one Joseph Roque , President and General Manager of Ga tev1ay Na chinery & Equipment Corp ., to the herein claimant Compafiia Maritima; 6. That the amount paid by Compafiia Haritima as pur chase price of said equip- ment was deducted from the account of Gateway Nachinery & Rquipment Corp . with the Earitime Company of the Philippines; 7. That one of the conditions set forth in the deed of s&Je is that the seller cer- tifies in the follm<ling tenor: 11 0f which I am the true and absolute owner per the following documents and shall forever war- rant my title to tlle same agree - ing to answer and be liable for any unpaid encumbrances , govern- ment fees and taxes existing previous to this date , if any." CExh . 1-B) 8 . That the subject shipment was ori ginal- ly destined for Tacloban City and upon arrival at the Port of l:lanila , the Hari time Company of the Phili ppines requested the Collector of Cus toms for permission to discharge it at ship- side unto bonded lighter , for transfer to Pier 8 , I orth Harbor , for delivery to original desti- nation; 9. That Collector of Customs issued Ship- side Permit No . 03532 dated July 19 , 1967 (Bxh . C 11 11 ) and pursuant thereto , subject ship- ment was unloaded from carrying vessel and loa ded unto lighter 11 Gloria 11 for transfer and dis charge at Pier 8 , North Harbor , Jv1ani~a ; 10. That prior to its actual transfer to Pier 8 , North Ha rbor , Naritime Company of the Philippines filed an amendment of th~ original destination of the said shipment from Tacloban City to Zamboanga City , which request was duly approved by the Deputy Collector of Customs . of Nanila; 11 . That per Customs Boat Note No . 09911 ,

DECISI ON - CTA CASE NO . 2492 3 the subject shipment was among those unloaded at Pier 8 , North Harbor from lighter 11 Gloria 11 , a fact ackno\-Jledged by Customs t�lharfinger . Cipriano Payos and Customs Guard Lauro Janolo; 12 . That there is no evidence to prove that the subject shi pment vJas deliver ed to its consignee at the port of destination vJhich is Zamboanga City ; 13 . That t here was likewtse no evidence to prove t hat the corresponding customs duties and taxes due thereon were duly paid to the Bureau of Customs; 14 . That t he subject equipment were found in the possession of the claimant , Compafiia Naritima , and they were being used by said Company in its b~siness at Pier 8 , North Har - bor , l\:ianila , on April 15 , 1969 , � less than two (2) years from their arrival; 15 . That at t he time the subject shj_pmen t vJas unloaded at Pier 8 , North Harbor , Ivranila from li ghter "Gloria 11 , claimant Compa.nia 11ar- itima was a duly au thorized bonded cornmon car - rier , that is , duly authorized by the Bureau of Customs to handle and carry dutiable mer - chandise discharged shipside from international vessel to any port of the Philiupines . (Pp . 46- 47 , CTA rec .; pp . 247- 2l.t-3 , Customs rec . ) It appears that on lpril 15 , 1969 , the Collector of Customs for the Port of rvlanila issued a warrant for the seizure and detention of one r unit used L:Lnkbelt 1-�1odel '78 Crawler Crane and t1-v0 units used li'or klift for non- paymen t of customs duty , taxes and other charges . By virtue of said warrant , the National J~ureau of Investigation (NBI for short) seized from pe titioner the said articles and , thereafter , seizure proceedings were insti t uted in the Bur eau of Customs . After hearing , the Collector of Cus - toms , on October 13 , 1969 , held that petitioner is a

DECISION CTA. BASE HO . 2492 third par ty pur chaser in good faith and ordered the release of the said articles upon payment of the corresponding customs duty , taxes and other charges due thereon . On November 5, 1969 , the NBI filed an urgent motion for reconsideration of the Collector ' s decision . On Nay 4 , 1970 , the Collector of Customs reconsidered his decision of October 13 , 1969 and declared the forfeiture of the said articles . On J.viay 11, 1970 , petitioner appealed to respondent . In a decision dated September 14 , 1970 , respondent set aside the decis i on of the Collector of Customs and ordered the release of the seized articles to petitioner upon payment of duties , taxes and other charges due there- on . On September 25 , 1970 , the NBI moved to reconsider respondent ' s decision. In a decision dated December 29 , 1972 , respondent set aside his decision of September 14 , 1970 and decreed the forfeiture of the articles in question in favor of the Republic of the Philippines for violation of Section 2530 (m-1 and 5) of the Tariff and Customs Code . A copy of the same was received by petitioner on January 9, 1973 � . On February 7 , 1973 , petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the said decision . The motion was denied by respondent and a copy of the order of denial was served upon petitioner on February 23 , 1973 . Peti- tioner filed the petition for revievJ with this Court on February 26 , 1973o This case was submitted for decision on the basis

DECISION - CTA CASB NO . 2492 5 of the pleadings and the Customs records . The issues raised in this case are as follows: 1. \�Jhether or not an alleged Order dated April 28, 1970 denying the motion for reconsideration filed by the National Bureau of Investigation was actually promulgated by the Collector of Customs; 2 . 1mether or not this C.our t has juris- diction to decide this case; and� 3 . vJhether or not the equipments in ques- tion are subject to forfeittiTe . \1e will first resolve the jurisdictional question. Under Section 11 of Republic Act No . 1125, petitioner has thirty (30) days from receipt of the Commissioner 1 s decision ,tJi thin which to appeal to this Court . In the case at bar , it is to be noted that from January 9, 1973 , when the final decision of respondent \vas received by petitioner , to February 7 , 1973 , the date the motion for reconsideration was filed, twenty- nine days had already expired . The running of the period was interrupted from the l~tter date to February 23 , 1973 when the denial of the motion for reconsideration was received by peti- tioner . From February 23 , 1973 to the filing of the present petition for review on February 26 , 1973 , another three days passed . All in all petitioner consumed a period of thirty~two days which is two days beyond the thirty- day period provided in Section 11 of Republic A.ct No . 1125 . The allegation of counsel for petitioner tnat he firmly believed that this Court did not hold office

D~CISION - CT CASE NO . 2492 ,6 on Saturdays, so that the petition for review filed the follovling working day should be deemed on time, is with- out merit . The pertinent provision of Rule 3, ules of the - Court of Tax uoeals states: ~ SEC . 3. The office of the Clerk of the Court of Tax ppeals shall be opeh for the purpose of receiving petitions , pleadings , motions , and the li ke , during the hours of eight to twelve .h . l�f . and one to four P . lL on l:ondays to Fr idays , and from eight . l.f . to one . M. on SQturdays except on such days as may be designated by lav1 or executive proc- lamation as being official holidays . (Under- scor ing supplied . ) Counsel should be aware that this Qourt is holding office on Saturdays . �~ore over , k..no'\Aling that the period to appeal is about to expire , he should have displayed alertness in safeguarding the interest of his client, and having failed to adopt such measures , he has himself to blame o (Phil . International Surety Co ., Inc . v . Comm . of Customs , C. T�� No . 760 , November 7 , 1963 . ) Having reached the conclusion on the jurisdictional issue adverse to petitioner, we deem it unnecessary to consider the other issues . ,JIIT:REF RE , the petition for review in the above - entitled case is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdic- tion . S0 ORD"SRED� Quezon City , October 14, 1975.