CTA Case No. 793 (Resolution)

REPUBLIC 0~ THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS MAl'~)' ILA LUCIO LOPPEeZt'itioner , / - versus - C. T. A. CASE NO . 793 THE COMHISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent . X-----�-- - -- X RE S 0 LUTI 0 N This is in connection with a motion to dismiss filed by respondent on January 10 , 1963, on the ground that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition for review. It appears from the records of the case that peti- tioner is the claimant of twelve (12) bales printed cotton textile in the� piece covered by Seizure Identifi- cation No . 3954. The Collector of Customs for the Port of :t--fanila ordered the seizure and forfeiture of above merchandise for alleged violation of Central Bank Cir- culars Nos . 44 and 45 in relation to Sections 1363( 1") and 1250 of the Revised Administrative Code . Said order was affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs on February I 26, 1960 in his decision which was received by petitioner on February 29, 1960 (Seep. 30 Customs rec . ) . On March 24, 1960 , the petitioner filed his first motion for reconsideration (See pp. 17- 29, Customs rec . ) . Respondent denied said motion on March 28, 1960 (See pp . 11-16 Customs rec . ), a copy of which was received by petitioner on March 29, 1960 (See :P � 9 Customs rec . ) . ,- /

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO . 793 - 2- By Apr il 6, 1960 , petitioner once more moved for a re- consider ation of respondent's order (See pp . 6- 8 Customs I rec . ) . Again, respondent denied the same on April 29 , 1960 . (Seep . 5 CUstoms rec . ) The order of denial was received by petitioner on :Hay 6 , 1960 (See p . 3 CUstoms rec . ) and by May 10, 1960, petitioner filed the instant petition for review with this Court . After the issues were joined, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for review on the ground that it was filed beyond the thirty- day period provided for in Section 11 of Republic Act No~ 1125. At the hearing of said motion, counsel for the petitioner ap- peared but did not present any evidence nor submit his memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss . Counsel for respondent did not appear at said hearing. Section 11 of Republic Act No . 1125 specifically provides that a taxpayer dissatisfied with a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs may appeal to this Court within thirty (30) days from receipt of said decision or ruling. Hi s failure to do so renders the same final and conclu sive (See Sec . 2~�02 of Tariff and " Customs Code, RA 1937). Petitioner filed his first mo tion for reconsider- ation twenty-four (24) days after his receipt of res- pondent ' s decision (February 29 , 1960 - March 24 , 1960); from the time he received the order of denial of the

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 793 - 3- same , l~c h 29, 1960, to the date he fi l ed his second motion for reconsider atio.t-;. , April 6 , 1960 , another eight (8 ) days elapsed; and f rom t he receipt of the second de nial, Hay 6 , 1960 , to the date of the fi l ing of the instant peti t ion f or review, Hay 10, 1960 , four (l.t) days were consumed , giving a t otal of thir t y- s ix (36 ) dayso I t is_ very obvious f rom the above that the ins tant peti tion for review was fi led beyond the 30- day period provi ded f or by law, in which case we do not have juris- diction to entertain t he same. / ; WHEREFORE , t he i nst ant petition for review is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, with costs against petiti oner . / SO ORDERED. Hani la, June 10, 1963 .