CTA Case No. 4317 (Resolution)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY UNIMEX MICRO-ELECTRONICS Gmbh, Petitioner, - versLts - C.T.A. CASE NO. 4317 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - X RESOLUTION This refers to the "Manifestation With Motion To Dismiss" filed by respondent on JLtly 21, 1989 for lack of jLtrisdiction. On the basis of the expediente and the records sLtbmitted to this CoLtrt in connection with the incident, it appears that on JLtly 9, 1985 a shipment of one (1) 40' Container and 171 Cartoons of CompLtter Games and Accessories on board the vessel "EVER GOLDEN/UNI-PIONEER", Voyage No. 00121006, arrived at the Port of Manila Llnder Bill of Lading Nos. HBGMNL 2132 and 0130, declared in the Inward Foreign Cargo Manifest as "One ( 1) Lot IndLtstrial Machineries (Total 1,100 Cartoons)" consigned "To Order of Allied Banking Corporation Notify: Handyware Phils., Inc., 47-49 Malasimbo St., Masambong, QLtezon City, M.M., Phils."

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 4317 - 2- On July 11, 1985, when said shipment was spot checked by agents of the CIID, it was found to contain "Unime>: Brand duplicator for video games cartridges; and super charger system for Atar.i". Hence, said shipment was recommended for seizure on the ground of misdeclaration. Seizure proceedings was instituted and a Warrant of Seizure and Detention dated March 3, 1987 was issued under S.I. 87-138 with Handyware Phils. ~ Inc. as consignee/claimant for violation of Section 2530 (f) and (1)-1-5 of the Tariff and Customs Code in relation to P.D. No. 519. For failure of consignee/claimant to appear at the schedulfi!d hearing on JLme 5, 1987 despite due notices~ the then Guillermo 0. Orbos, District Collector of Customs, issued an order of defaLilt and proceeded with the hearing ex parte~ after which, in the absence of evidence controverting the violation imputed, the shipment in question was decreed forfeited in favor of the Government. At this juncture, it may be stated that Handyware Phi 1s. , Inc. consignee/c 1aimant did not interpose an appeal from the decision of the Collector of Customs to the Commissioner of Custc1ms. Hc.1wever, on June 15, 1987, Unime>: Micro Electronics filed a "Motion For Intervention/And To

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 4317 - 3- Lift Judgment By Default" as shipper and owner of the shipment in question. After due hearing, said motion was given due course by Buenaventura Maniego, Collector of Customs, Port of Manila, who in his Order dated December 15, 1987, set aside the judgment by default and allovJed movant to intervene. In an undated 1st Indorsement, Collector Maniego submitted to the Commissioner for clearance a proposed unsigned decision decreeing the lifting of the warrant of seizure and detention and the release of the shipment in question upon payment of duties, taxes and other charges due the Government. The Commissioner of Customs, in 2nd Indorsement dated 18, 1988, denied the proposed decision and directed the Collector to proceed with the sei zure proceedings and to decree the forfeiture of the shipment in question in favor of the Government to be disposed of as provided by law. Upon motion of Intervenor�, the case was reheard and Ricardo R. Ampil, District Collector of Customs in his 1st Indorsement dated April 29, 1988 sotJght clearance fr�om the Commissioner of Customs for a proposed decision ordering the lifting of the

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 4317 - 4- warrant of seizure and detention and the release of the goods in question. The Commissioner of Customs, in his 4th Indorsement dated June 28, 1988 again denied the proposed decision and reiterated his 2nd Indorsement dated Mar�ch 18, 1988, and instrLtcted the District Collector of Customs to effect forfeiture and disposal of the shipment in question. Not satisfied with the action taken by the Commissioner� of Customs, Intervenor filed a Memorandum seeking reconsideration of the denial of the proposed dec ision. Sometime in ALtgust, 1988, the Commissioner of Customs, in his 6th Indorsement, retLtrned the en tire r�ec:ords of S. I. No. 87-138 to the District Collector of Customs denying the motion for reconsideration and directed the disposition of the shipment in question in the manner provided by law. It is the decision of the Commissioner of Cwstoms dated JLtne 28, 1988 which petitioner is appealing from. The position of respondent in his manifestation with motion to dismiss and during the hearing on November 15, 1989 is premised on the

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 4317 - 5- theory that inasmuch as the decision of the Collector of Customs dated June 5, 1987 has not been elevated to the Commissioner of Customs on appeal, there could be no decision rendered thereon by respondent to warrant or to serve as basis for the petition for review with this Court. We find this view well taken. Pursuant to the law and jurisprudence, the person aggrieved by the dec ision or ruling of the Call ector of Customs in seizure case may appeal the same to the Commissioner of Customs within fifteen ( 15) days from notice thereof. The failure of petitioner to interpose seasonable appeal renders the Collector's decision final and e>:ecutory and therefore, beyond the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs or of this Court to review, revise or modify. As the law on the matter actually stands, the appea 1 made avai 1ab 1e to an importer or persons aggrieved by a decision or ruling of any collector of customs of the Phi 1 i ppines has two ( 2) phases: firsj;_, the one provided for in Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 1927, as amended), i.e.~ such party is given fifteen (15) days from receipt of

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 4317 - 6- the adverse ruling or decision of the Collector to give notice in writing to the latter signifying his desir�e to have the matter reviewed by the Commissioner of Customs, and �;_t~f;..Q.nd., if s t i l l dissatisfied, his appeal could be projected to the Court of Tax Appeals pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125 by filing with said tribunal a petition within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice of the decision or ruling sought to be revie\.'Jed. (Sa�pagui ta Shoe & 51 i pper Factory vs. Co��issioner of Custo�s, et al.~ 1CJ2 Phil, 850,) And more, the period of fifteen (15) days in cases of forfeiture is not a matter of procedure which courts may ignore. The provisions of the customs 1aw, 1 ike those of the internal revenue code~ are not merely directory but mandatory. The period for an appeal is fi:�:ed by law at fifteen (15) days in order that penal ties for violation of the laws or rules on importation may be promptly enforced. Questions involving forfeiture should be decided prompt 1y and e:�: pedi tiousl y, as de 1ays therein may resu 1t in the c 1egging of customs warehouses with merchandise illegally imported. It is beyond the power of the courts to extend the period for appea 1. (Chan Ki an vs. The Court of Tax Appeals and The Collector of Custo�s~ 105 Phil. 904.)

RESOLUTION - CTA CASE NO. 4317 - 7- Th e argu me n t of petitioner that its case has already been terminated and a decision was already reached and signed~ is we believe~ without merit. Suffice it to state that the right of any party who claims to have been prejudiced is granted by law and such right does not depend upon the correctness of the order appealed from. The action of the Commissioner o �f Customs cannot have the effect C.)f waiving the provision of the law requiring that an appeal from the decision of the Collector of Customs on forfeiture must be filed within fifteen (15) days. ( Chan Kian vs. The Court of Tax Appeals, et al. , id.J IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, we find respondent's "Manifestation With Motion To Dismiss" well founded and the same is hereby GRANTED. For lack of jurisdiction, the "Petition For Review" filed by petitioner on December 29, 1988, should be, as it is hereby dismissed, with costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Quezon City~ Metro Manila, February 13, 1990. ~-RE~ Presiding Judge Associate JLtdge (On Leave) CONSTANTE C. ROAQUIN Associate Judge