NATIONAL STEEL CORPORATION v. TARIFF COMMISSION, DONGBU CORPORATION and POSCO STELL SERVICES AND SALES CO., LTD., CENTURY CONTAINER CORPORATION, GENPACCO, INC. and ROWELL CAN CORPORATION.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY NATIONA L ST EE L CORPORATIO N, Petitio ner, - ve rsus - C.T. A. CASE NO. 6167 TARIFF COM MISSION, DONG B U Promul gat ed : CORPORATION and POSCO ST EEL SERVIC ES AN D SALES CO. , LTD., CENTURY CONTA INE R CORP., GENPACCO INC. and ROWE LL CAN CORP., Res pond e nt s. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X RESOLUTION At bar is a Motion to Di smi ss fil ed by the Pu blic Respondent Tari ff Co mmi ss ion on December 12, 2000. on the ground that thi s Co urt lacks j uri sdicti on over the subject matter of thi s case since the pub lic Respo nd ent's Reco rt on Findings assailed by the Petiti oner does not impose any dumping du ty. Movant be li eves that the Co urt of Tax Appea ls may take cogni zance of an anti- dumping case onl y if an anti-clumpin g duty has bee n imposed. Respondents' ratiocination hinges mainl y on the prov isions of subsecti on I of Republic Act No. 7843 or the Anti- Dumping Act of 1994, amendin g Secti on 30 I of the Tari ff and Customs Code which prov ides. to \"-'it : "Any aggrieved party may appea l onl y the amount of the dumping duty to the Co urt of Tax Appeals in the same manner and within the same peri od as prov ided for by law in the case of a p ~1ea l from dec ision of the

RESOLUTION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 6 167 - 2- Co mmi ssio ner of Customs. The fin dings of fact in a dum ping case shall be fi nal and conclus ive ." From the above and ci ting as its bas is the dec ision of the Co urt of Appeals in the case of Total 2000 Corporation vs. Court of Tax Appeals, ct. al., CA-G.R. SP No. 42380, Febmary 18, 1997, where the said Co urt ruled th at the Co urt of Tax Appeals does not have j uri sdi cti on if the anti-dum ping dec ision of the Sec retary of Finance does not impose any dumping du ty, acco rdingly, Respo ndent co ncludes that the petition must be di smi ssed. To controvert publi c Respondent ' s stance, Petiti oner, in support of its petiti on reli ed on the prov isions of Republi c Act No. 8752 or the Anti-Dumping Act of 1999 which, all egedly , is the ap pli cab le law si nce the same w~s already in fo rce at the time the instant appeal was interposed . Petitioner opines that und er subsecti on ( I) R.A. No. 8752, a party has a ri ght to ap pea l a negative fi nding of the Ta ri ff Commi ss ion, thus: "In case of a negati ve finding by the Commi ssio n, the Secretary shall issue, after the lapse of the peri od fo r the petiti oner to appeal to the Co urt of Tax Appeals, through the Secretary of Finance, an orde r fo r the Commi ss ioner of Customs fo r the immedi ate release of the cash bond to the importe r. In additi on, all the parti es co ncerned shall also be properl y notifi ed of the di smi ssal of the case." On the other hand , Respondent asse rts that the appli cab le prov ision is subsection (p) of the afo resa id law whi ch provi des, thus: (p) Judicial Revievv. - Any interested party in an anti-dumping investi gati on who is adverse ly affected by a fin al ruling in co nnecti on with the impos iti on of an anti-clumping duty may fi le with the Co urt of Tax Appea ls, a pet iti on for the rev iew of such rul ing within th irty (30) days from hi s recei pt of notice of the final ruling: Provided. however, That the filin g of such petiti on fo r rev iew shall not in any way stop, suspend , or otherwise hold the imposition or collecti on, as the case may be, of the anti-

RESOLUTION- �~ I C.T.A . CA SE NO . 616 7 �~ li -3- :I dumping duty on the imported product, co mmodity or article. The rul es of proced ure of the co urt on the petiti on for rev iew til ed with the Co urt of Tax Appeals shall be app li ed. All the aforementi oned prov isio ns stud iedl y co nsidered, the ineluctable co nclusion is that the Petiti on fo r Rev iew must be dis mi ssed. The iss ues in thi s case hav ing bee n reso lved by thi s Co urt in the case entitled National Steel Corporation vs. Tariff Commission, 'T'on Vi Industries Corporation, Sheng Yu Steel Co., Ltd., Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd., China Steel Corporation, CTA Case No. 6140, January 15, 2001, invo lving simil ar parties, We see no cogent reason at thi s point to dev iate from, much less di srega rd what We have already elaborated upon, and We quote thus: "We opine that the main th rust of subsecti on (I ) is the iss uance of an order by the Secretary for the release of the cas h bond afte r a negati ve findin g. The right to ap pea l fro m a negative findin g cannot simpl y be infe rred from the mere menti on of the phrases "in case of a negati ve fi nding by the Commi ss ion" and "after the lapse of the peri od fo r the petition to appeal to the Co urt of Tax Appea ls". The reference to the period to appeal to the CTA is si mpl y to prov ide for a rec konin g peri l'd fo r the Secretary to issue an Order for the Commi ss ioner of Customs to immediately release the cash bond to the importe rs in case of a negati ve findin g by the Commi ssion. Whereas in case of a fin al affirmative determinati on by the Co mmi ssion, the Secretary is mandated to order the impos iti on of the anti-dumping duty through a Department Order as well as to appl y the cash bond , if any, to the said dumping duty. On the other hand , subsect ion (p) prov ides fo r a more direct and unequi voca l authority on vvhen j udi cial ap pea l to the CTA is proper as compared to the mere co ll ate ral citatio n in subsecti on (1). It must be po inted out that the ri ght to appeal, bein g a mere stat uto ry ri ght, cannot be simply based on mere impli cati ons. The prov ision of subsect ion (p) is quite clear. Thu s, onl y a party who is adverse ly affected by a fin al ruling in co nnecti0)1 with the impos iti on of an anti�-dumping dut y may fi le a petiti on fo r rev iew with the CTA . Co nsidering that in the case at bar no anti -dump ing dut y was imposed, fi lin g a petiti on for ,.,

RESOLUTION- C. T.A. CASE NO. 6 167 -4- :! review with the CTA is not pro per. To put it differentl y, the CTA has no !I jurisdiction to entertain the same. The rati onale for defining limits upon the juri sdicti on of the CTA on appeals from dumping dec isions is anchored on the recogniti on by law of the presumed ex perti se of the in ves ti gatin g/dec iding authority in the dumping case. lt is likewise worth stress ing at thi s point that Republic Act No. 1125, An Act Creating the Co urt of Tax Appea ls. vested the CTA jurisdi cti on over the foll owing: SEC. 7. Jurisdiction. - The Co urt of Tax Appeals shall exerci se exclusive appellate jurisdi cti on to rev iew by appea l, as herein prov ided - (I ) Deci sions of the Commi ss ioner Ot. lnternal Revenue in cases in vo lvi ng di sputed assess ment, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalti es im posed in relati on thereto, or other matters ari sing under the Nati onal Internal Reve nue Code or other law or part of law admini stered by the Bureau of Internal Reve nu e; (2) Decisions of the Co mmi ss ioner of Cu stoms in cases involving li ability for customs duti es, fees or other money charges; se izure, detention or release of property affected; fines, forfeitures or other penalti es imposed in relati on thereto; or other matters arising under the Customs law or other law or part of law admini stered by the Burea u of Customs; and XXX XXX XXX R. A. No. 1125 created a speci al co urt to rev iew on the subj ect matters above enumerated. No \v, to adopt Petiti oner' s view would mean that the Anti-Dumping Ac t of 1999 enl arges CTA's juri sdi cti on as it will now rev iew the findin gs of the Ta ri ff' Co mmi ss ion regardl ess of whether a .l.i dumping duty is imposed or not. We hold that that is not the intendment of the law. '4.' l~i jf Il l .I .: 1 ' 'l ~l ! I '

R ES OL UT IO N- C.T.A. CASE NO . 6 167 - 5- Accordingly, it is more logica l to conclude that the CTA has jurisdicti on onl y in cases when a du mping duty is imposed wherein it can re-compute or rev iew the amount so im posed. Stated otherwise. the j uri sdi cti on of this Co urt is not onl y limited to decisions of the Commi ss ioner of Internal Revenue and Co mmi ssioner of Customs, as mentioned in R.A. 11 25 (The Law Creating the Co urt of Tax Appea ls), but also includes dec isio ns of the Sec re�ary of Finance in certain cases as clea rl y prov ided fo r in Sec tio n 23 15 of PO 1464, otherwise known as The Tariff and Customs Code of the Phili ppines (TCCP). The juri sdicti on of thi s Court was likewise expa nded by Section 30 1 of the TCCP as amended by R.A. 8752 (The Anti-Dumping Act of 1999). Paragraph (p) of said Secti on 30 1 of the TCCP, as amended, provi des that any party adve rsely affected by a final ruling in connection with the impos iti on of an anti-cl umping duty may fi le a petiti on for rev iew with thi s Co urt. Since in the case at bar it was not disputed that no anti-dumping duty has been imposed, the Co urt has no j uri sdi cti on over the instant case. Finally, bas ic is the rul e that all parts of the statute are to be harmoni zed and reconci led so that effect may be given to each and every part thereof. Nevertheless, ass uming that there ex ists a real confli ct between subsections (I) and (p), We co ncur with the Publi c Respondent that the doubt shoul d be reso lve in favor of the latter beca use it has been held that the prov ision last in orde r of positi on will prL va il as be in g the latest ex press ion of the inten t of the leg islation. (A renas vs . City of San Carl os, 82 SCRA 3 18). Moreove r, when one prov ision or secti on of a statu te treats specially and so lely of a matter, that secti on or prov ision prevail s over other sections to whi ch onl y incidental reference is made thereto. (Handbook on Statutory Construct ion, Martin , 5th ed., p. 148)." IN VIEW O F ALL TH E FOR EG OI NG , the instant Peti tio n for Review ts hereby DI SMI SSE D for lack of juri sdi ction. if I SO ORDE R ED. ~LP-~ ERNESTO D. ACOST A Presiding Judge