CTA Case No. 1615 (Resolution)

/ f\<F.;vnuH1."TTC OF TI'" r TITT pTPP'T~'K''u, :X. OF T p .a..u ~ zo.N Y - �..... .. LEONORA & COHPANY, CTA CASE NO. 1615 Petitioner, versus � THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - X DE C I S I 0 N On January 22, 1954, fifty (50) bags of melon seeds, consigned to herein petitioner, arrived at the port of Manila on board the S/S 11DONA BEBANG" . The impor- tation was accompanied by a bill of lading and a commercial invoice from Hongkong, but for lack of a consular invoice and a release certificate from the Central Bank or any of its authorized agent banks, it was seized by the Bureau of Customs (Seizure Identification No . 1363) for violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos . 44 and 45, in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. Pending the sei- zure proceedings , the goods were released to peti- tioner under Surety Bond No . G-18318 for P1 ,335. 00 executed by the Central Surety & Insurance Company. On April 19, 1960, after hearing, the Acting Collector of Customs rendered a decision decreeing the forfeiture of the said merchandise and ordering petitioner and its surety to pay, jointly and sev- erally, the sum of ~1 ,335. 00 within thirty (30) days

DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 1615 2 from receipt of notice of the decision. On appeal to herein respondent Commissioner of Customs , the latter affirmed the decision of the Collector on November 9, 1962. Subsequent to the receipt on December 10, 1962 (p. 158, Customs rec.) of a copy of the Commissioner's decision, petitioner interposed a motion for recon- sideration. At this juncture, it may be stated that the date of filing of petitioner's motion for reconsideration is not clear from the records and the pleadings of the parties are in conflict as to said date. While petitioner alleges that its motion was filed on December 13, 196~ (see par. ~' Petition , p. 2, C. T. A. rec.), respondent claims that said motion was filed on December 26, 1962 (see par. 2, Answer, p. 13, c. T. A. rec.). On March 10, 1965, respondent denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration, which denial was received by petitioner on March 20, 1965 (p. 169, Customs rec.). Petitioner appealed to this Court on April 19, 1965 ( p . 1, c. T. A. rec.). In his answer, respondent raised as one of his affirmative defen~es the question of jurisdiction, contending that petitioner's appeal was filed out of time. The principal issues presented for our consid- eration in this case are as follows: (:

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 1615 3 (1) Whether or not this Court has jurisdiction over the instant appeal; and (2) Whether or not the forfeiture of the questioned importation is valid and in accordance with law. From the foregoing facts, we find that respond- ent's affirmative defense is well taken. The thirty- day period for appeal provided in Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125 had already expired even if we were to consider that the motion for reconsideration of petitioner was fi l ed on December 13, 1962, in- stead of on December 26, 1962, as claimed by re- spondent, inasmuch as from December 10, 1962, when petitioner received the decision of respondent, to December 13, 1962, when petitioner filed its motion for reconsideration, 3 days had already elapsed; and from March 20, 1965, when petitioner received notice of the denial of its motion for reconsideration to April 19, 1965 when it filed its petition for review in this Court, a period of 30 days had expired, or a total of 33 days . Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the present appeal. At any rate, even if we have jurisdiction over the present appeal, the legality of the forfeiture of articles imported in violation of Circular Nos. 44 and 45 of the Central Bank is already a settled matter (See Andres E. Lazaro v. Comm. of Customs, G. R. Nos. L-22511 & L-22513, 11ay 16, 1966; Bienvenido Capulong v. Comm. of Customs, G. R. No. L-22990, Hay 19, 1966, and cases cited therein).

... CTA70. DECISION - 1615 4 I N VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the herein appeal is hereby dismissed , wit~sts against petitioner . SO ORDERED . / Quez9n City, February 20, 1967. ROMAN M. UV.IALI Presiding Judge WE CONCUR : ~- ' ~~ ~IAOR . ALV~ Associate Judge / /L _ _ -i~ ~:.:WrJ L. AVANCENA Associate Judge