CTA Case No. 4613 (Decision)

!/ R~PUBLIC OF ~HE PHIL! PIRBS COURT OF TAX A PB LS QU ZOM CITY 0 E (1) UHIT I UZU PICK-UP C . T . . CASH MO. 4613 MOTOR V HICLE BEARIRG PLATB MO. CG-603, CHASSIS RO. SK 967025, ORB (1) URIT HIHO TRUCK TRACTOR, PLATE MO. CFP-430 CHASSIS RO. HH341-10174, CORSOLIDA~BD PLYWOOD IRDUSTRIES, IWC., Petitioner, - versus - COHHISSIORER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - X DE CI S I 0 N This p resent case involves t he seizurP. by the respondent of the petitioner's two ve hic les as violative of Customs Laws, particularly Section 2530(f), 1(1) and (5) [Revi sed Tarif f and Customs Code]. On October 11, 1989 , . two ( 2) separate Warrants of Seizure and Detention were issued by the District Collector of Customs , Port of Davao covering one ( 1) Unit Isuzu Pick-up and One ( 1 ) Unit Hi no Tr1ck Tractor, owned by herein .) 12 0

DECISIOII - 613 C.T.A. CASE MO . - 2- petitioner. (S ee 1\nnexes C and C , pp. 17 and 18, CTA Records) . On Octob er 16, 1989, p etiti oner thro ugh its Vice - President Benito Mesina p osted a bond under protest for the one ( 1) unit Isuzu Pic k- up in the amount of P31,670.00 (see Exh. "C-1", p. 1 0 7, CTA Records). The questioned vehicle was subsequently temporarily release d for thirty ( 30) days to the owner/claimant after the Wa rra nt of Seizure and Detention was lifted by the Collector of Customs (see Exh. �'c'', p. 104, ibid). ., On Oc tober 31, 1989 a Motion for Reconsiderati on was filed to make the order lifting the Warrant of Seizure and Detent ion permanent in character. Such Motion fo r Reconsiderati o n was denied by the Co lle c tor of Custo ms "for la ck of merit" on Apr il 30, 1990 ( see Ann ex C, p. 26, ibid). On Hay 15, 1990, petit ioner fi le d a P e tition for Review befo re the Commis sio ner of Customs with regard to the den ial of its Motion for Reconsideration received on April 30, 1990, involving the one (1) Unit Isuzu Pick-up. In its Petition for Review, (Annex E, pp . 19-25, ibid) petitioner bewailed the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration for being "un justi fied on the 12C

� DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4~J3 -3- ground that "the owner - cl"limant acquired the vehicle in quPstion in good faith under a bona fid e deed o� sale as clearly indicated � in the registration certificate with 'PC clearance'." <ibid, p. 22>. And since "the vehicle in question is already duly registered with the Land Transportation Office, with 'PC clearance', and therefore, is no longer within the jurisdiction o:f the Bureau of Customs to detain or hold the same in its custody �or the purpo se o:f det.ermining liability of such duties or fees " (ibid) -, On May 28, t 990, petiti oner- fi led a Petition for Review before the Commissioner of Customs with regard to the denial of its Motion for Reconsideration received on May 8, 1990 involving the other vehicle (Hino Truck Tractor). In its .I defense, petitioner invoked the same ground of good faith in its acquisiticn of the questioned vehicle, I the same having been duly regi stered ~i th t e Land Transportation Office. According to the petitioner, "~s a mere transferee for valuable consideration and in good faith, the Consolidated P1 ywood Industries, Inc. , has all the attrj butes o:f clean ownership and free from all 1 �~en over th e said personal property in quest ion, even as to its possession and control. Any sort of depri. vat ion

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4613 - 4- t h ereof shall cPrtai nly am ount to an arbitrary and despotic rul e i n the sho wing of its s ourcew <Annex F, p. 31, CTA Records> . On October 12, 1990, the Commissioner of Customs dismissed the Petit ion for Review .in both instances afor eme ntioned <Annex A, p. 14, � ibid>, by stating that: .) " The notices of appeal, however, were not o nly affixed with the requi.red customs stamp, nor the appeal :fee caused to be paid as required by Section 3301 of the Tar iff and Cus toms Code and Cust.ome Admin istr at ive Order No . 2 26. " The Com mis sionPr o� Cust oms cited the ~ caee of Lipat vs. Commissioner of Cust01ws, CTA Case No. 1442, October 26, 1965 which states: "Th e st~mp re q uirement is in the nature o� a doc ket :fee and :failure to pa y the docket :fee :foF appeals on time i s :fatal. " A Motion :for Reconsiderat ion was filed but it was subseque ntly deni.ed in the Order of the Commissioner, dated January 29, 1992 <Annex 8, p . 15, ibid>, sta ting that: "The reason advanced for claimant ' s failure to comply with the aforesaid requirement is the lack of information to that ef:fect. It is basic, however, that ignorance o :f the law excuses no one from compliance therewith . Even so, it appears :from the face of the n otice of appeal for both cases that they were :filed out of time as prescribed by Section 2313 of the Tar i ff and Customs. "

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4613 -5- Hence, thjs PPt.iti on f or Review :filed in this Co u r t on Ma y 23, 1991. The case brought before Us f or d eci s i on h as, a t t he out set, been marred b y proc edural infirmit ies which e ventua l ly prove fat a l to the cause o f the petitioner. And , regardless of the alleged merits of the case, as procedur~l rules was not duly c omplied with, the same cannot by itself resurrect � what has been from the start already a d ead cas e. Firs t, thP peti t i oner failed to perfe ct its ., appeal from th e order of the Dist r ict Collector of Cu sto ms to th e Co mm is sioner of Custo ms wit h i n t he re g l eme ntary pl'>rio d of fi fteen <15 > days afte r not i fication in wr i ti ng by the Col lector o:f h i s a c tion or d ecision p ursuant to Sect ion 2313 of t he Tar i ff and Cu sto ms Cod e which pro vid es : " Sect i. o n 2 313. R~vie_~ �----���--l;l)! Go!ftmissioner. 'The person aggr ieved by the decision or a c tion of t he Collec�tor in any ma t te r presented up o n pro t est or by his acti on i n any ca s e o :f seizure may. within f i fteen <15> days a:fter notification in writing by the Collector o:f his action or decision, give writ t en notice to the Collector and one c o py furnished to the Commission r o� his desire to have the matter reviewed by t he Commissi o ner. Thereupon the Collector shall . forthwith transmit all the records of the procee d i ngs to the Commissioner, who shall appr ove, modi:fy or reverse t he action or decisi o n o:f t he Col e c t o r and take su c h s t eps and ma k e such o rders as

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4613 -6- may be necessary to give effect to his decision . " While it may be true that herein petitioner filed its noti ce of appeal within the :fifte en <15> day reglementa r y period, such notice o:f appeal can only be considered a mere "scrap o:f paper" si nce it was not perfected for the :failure o:f petiti oner to affix to the notice of appeal the required customs stamp pursuant to Section 3301 o:f the Tariff and ,. Customs Code, as amended. Such documentary customs stamps requirement "is in the nature o:f a docket fee and failure to pay the docket :fee :for appeals on time is " f~t~l� <Lipat v. Customs, CTA Case No. 1442, Oct. 26, 1966>. Again, ignorance of such requirement is not a defense. The period of 15 days prescribed by lew :for an appeal in cases of :forfeiture is not just a procedural matter which the courts may ignore . The provisions of the cJstoms Law, like , those of the Internal Revenue Code, are not merely directory but mandatory. The period for an appeal is :fixed by law at 15 days in order that penalties :for violation of the laws or rules o:f importation should be decided promptly and expeditiously as delays therein may result in the clogging o:f customs warehouses with merchandise Lllegally

DECISIOR - C.T.A. CASE HO. 4613 imported. - 7- ( See also TEJAM, Commenta ries on the revised Tariff and Customs Code, Vol. 4, Ed., 1986, p. 2305. Second, as if to extract more blood from what has been a procedural! y anemic condit_ion of t he petitioner, its counsel fi led t his petition for review in this Court on May 23, 1991 supposedly as an appeal from the denial order of the Commissioner of Customs received on Octobe r 30, 1990 which i s about seven (7) months long after the reglementary period of thirty (30) days has already lapsed. Even if We have to count the 30-d ay pe r:l.od from receipt of the denial by the Commissioner of Customs of the Motion for Reconsideration, allegedly received by petitioner on March 14, 1992, this instant Petition for Re v i e w legally filed on May 23, 199 1 has alrea dy prescribed. Section 2402 of the Tariff and Cuf:toms Code and Section 11 of ' the Republi c Act p rovide su c �h regle mentary No. 1125 period for appeal from the .Commissioner of Customs to the Court of Tax Appeals which are quoted, thusz. " SEC . 2 4 0 2 . !!.~Y.!~.:!!__!?..Y._Co~!:!__~~-1' a! . .~P.. P..~. ~.! ~. The party aggrieved by a ruling of the Commissioner i n any matter brought before him upon protest or by his action or ruling in any case of seizure �~-~.Y.... -~.P.J>..~..~..! .....!:.9......!:.h.~.....f.�.~�~.P-~_. 1_~L~P-e a 1!...t. 13i

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE HO. 4613 - 8- .!.~.......!:.h.~......... ~~.~~.~.:!=:..........~.~.q.... ....!..!..~.h.!..~...... __!:_. l!.~-�.P- e.!.!�>..~ .P..!:.~..~.~-!:.!.P..~9. ....t::>..Y......! .~~..--~.I.!..~....--~~-9..~..!.~.!:.!gn.~ � "Unless an appeal is made to the Court of Tax Appeals, in the manner and within the period prescribed by lawe and regulations, the action or ruling of the Commissioner shall be final and conclusive . " (Underscoring supplied) and " sEc . 11 . .~.1.!.~---.!~Y-~P.P..~.~l.i..._.!!_!: ec_!:.....of ! .~P.P..~. .! .� Any person, association or corporation adversely affected by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Commissioner o f Customs or any provincial or city Board of Asse ssment Appeals may file an appeal in the Court o f Tax Ap pea 1 s .~..!..!:.h.!.~_..!:!!.!.E_!:._y .9.e.Y.~. after the receipt of such ..,decision or ruling . "xxx xxx XXX." (Undersco ring supplied) Again, defense of ignorance on the procedural rule s on the part of the coun~el for petitioner will not hold water. Unfortunately, petitioner is bound by the fault of its counsel. I Without going through the meri tEt or demerits of this case, the same is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. This Court cannot entertain a case which has been barred by prescription. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Metro Manila, R~~~~~ Associate Judqe 13 2

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO . 4613 - 9- WE CORCURt ~Q,~ ERRBSTO D. ACOSTA Presid~ / ~ U HARUEL ~GRUBA Associate Judge CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this decision was reached after due consultation among the aeabers of the Court of Tax Appeals in accordance with Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution . ~~ \Qcc~ BRRESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Judge Court of Tax Appeals 13 0