CTA Case No. 4344 (Decision)

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF TnX nPPEnLS Ou e:z on C ity BATAAN LEATHER GOODS, INC., C.T.A. Case No. 4344 j:) e t i t i o n e t~ , COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent. X ----------------------- X DEC I I0N This cc.~s e ste mmed ft~ om the the Respondent Co mmi s s i on e t~ o f Customs dated Janu at~y 5, 1 '38'3 , de ct~f~ei ng t he forfeittn~e in favot~ of the g overnment of the importation consisting of 5'3 bales o f MX Leather Goods white ft.> valued .:.'t US $ 37 , l c~ 9. 3'~ . Petitioner, a corporation duly organized a nd existing und er the law s of the Philippines, is a sub ~- idiat~ y of Leo a Japanese Corporation wh ic h shippe d the goods in question. Petitioner wa s autho rized and ent r usted as the latter's agent in - executi ng all and any procedures for the s hipp ing b ack of the car go es fr~ om Manil a port to Japan <see Annex F>. The fact s of the case are narra ted in the opinion of the P etitio ner: �65

- DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4344 1. That on M a t~ ch 8, 1986, Leo Corporation s hi~ped from Osaka, Japan, 59 bales MX Leather Go ods white <22,427.2 sq. m.) to Manila, Phi 1 ippines , undet~ Bi 11 of Lading No. 33;~727 dc.1.ted M.:n~c h 8, 1987, issued by ~~merican Pt~esident Lines, Ltd. Undet~ the said bill of Lading, the shipment was consi~1ned "To thE~ Ot~dE~t~ of Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation , notify L. o t u s E >< p m~ t S p e c i a l i s t s , I n c � " 2. That the shipment ar't' i v ed at the Pot~t of tr1ani. la on M.:n~c h 21, 1986, and was di schar g e d at Pier Cargo Coral Warehouse No. 3. 3 , Sp~~c i i:\ 1 w. lhat prior to such arrival, howevet', ot~ on Mat'ch 10, 1985, Leo Corporation received a telex from Lotus E >< p o t' t Spec i a 1i st , Inc � ( " Lot us " ) , requesting it to hold the s hipment until instructions to proceed are given to it by Lotus. '+. That on that same date, Leo Corporation sent a reply telex to Lotus, informing the latter that the shipment had already been shipped on March 8, 1985. 5 � T h at o n f-) r-w i 1 5 , 1 '3 8 E. , Mt~ � K i m Younq �-C hang, Ge tH~t'al 1"'1 anaget~ of Lot1.1s, wrote the Collector of Customs at the EPZA, stating the�r' ein that the "shipment was abandoned by us (Lotus) due to the following reasons: L Lett e t' of Ct'e d it ;;;.. J. t'ead y e ><pi t' ed beftH'e s hipment tt-Ja s fl!ade Supp 1 i e �r'; by 0 Ut' E:. Pt~ e vic> us shipme nts made by sc.1.i d same Suppl i et~ tt-Jet'e mostly t~ejected 1 eatt1et' so this time we don't 11-1ant to take the risk of buying 'r"'f?jects a.gain; - 652

- DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 434 4 3 3 . The Cent t'cd prohibits the s hipment e >< p i t ' e d L I C � " In t h �~ s a me 1 e t t e t' , Lot us requested that the Collector of Customs "a 11 ow oUt' Supp 1 i et' - LEO CORPORATION to bacl< s hip said s hipment to t h e m." E... That o n Apt' i 1 c:'3 , 1 '386, Lotus again wrote the Collector of Custo ms at P o t' t ~~ r' e a , Man i 1 a , t' e q 1..1 e s t i n g f o t' a RETURN SH IPMENT PERMIT i n order to spare Lotus Corporation a s o wn er/ship per from s u f f et' i n g an y 1o s s � Lot us a 1s o explain ~ d that while it had u s ed the \'Jonj " aba ndon " in its lettet' of Apt' il 5, 1'386 jt s real intention was to see k the t'et�.n�' n o f the s hipment to the Dwnet'/~:; h i ppet'. 7 . On the s.:une date, Mt'S. Zenaida R. Lap era , Assistant Manager of Ri za l Com met' cial Ban ~<i THJ Cot' pOt'a tion ("RCBC">, Marivel ps Bran c h, Bataan, likew ise requ ested authority fro m the Collector of Customs to re - ship the s hipment to Leo Corporatio n, the Owner/Shipper, for the reason that the l etter of credit covering subject shipment h a d already expit'ed. 8. Th at in a Memorandu m for the Collectot' of Cu st oms dated l'r1ay 2'3 , 1'386 , ntty. Manuel Rosete, Senior Leg al Office r of the Law Division recommended the r e-e xportation of the shipment s ubject to filing of re -ex port bond and pertine nt wareh o u s ing entry in re s pon se to the letter o r RCBC. '3. That on J�.m e 1.1, l '386 , Mr-. Pab lo B. Ave str u z , Specia l Assista nt , Port Operation s Branch , a l so issued a Memorandum to the Head, Port Operation s Branch, lik ewise recommending the approv a l nf th e reque s t for re - shi pment subject to the filing of co n s tructive warehou si ng e n try with ord inary re - e H pot' t: h n 1t d . /'I - /( ) / 1.-t

- DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4344 10. That o n Septe mbE~ t~ 1., 1.985, Mr. Yoshi Fujita of Petitioner wrote the then Co mmi ssio ner of C u sto ms Hon. Wigberto Tanada reiterating th e request to re - exrort the s hipment. 1.1. Th at on Septe mber 10, 1 r98E., seizure proceedings were comn1enced aga in st the Shipment for a lleged v iolati on of Sec . 2530 f and 1. (3)-( 5 ) of the Tariff and Customs Code ( "Tat~i ff Code") 1. ;::~ . Th a t o n Nove mbet~ 20 , 1. 985, Petitioner fi led a Motion for Leave To Intervene in the seizure cases. 13. Thi':\t on August 21 , 1'387, a decision on t he seizure case was is sued ordering the forfeiture of the shipment in fav or of the government. l L~ � That on At..tqust 15, 1'387, petitione Y' file d an Appeal wi t h the Com mi ssioner of C ustoms <Cust oms Case No. 87 -� 1 3 >, whi ch was denied by the respondent in its Deci s ion dated Decembet~ 15, 1 987 . On Januat~y C::E., 1'388, petitioner filed a Motio n for Reconsideration of t he said Decision, which was denied by the respondent in i t s Ot~det~ d a ted J a ntJat~ y 5 , 1 '38'3: <Request For ~dmis s i o n, pp. 87-90, CTP Records) The foregoing f ac ts were admitted by the Respondent subject to th~ following qual i fic at ions: (a) that Leo Corporation is not t h ~? o wn e t~ , b u t o n l y t h f? s h i p p e t~ , s i n c e for customs purposes, the consiqnpe- owner of the subject s hipment is Lotus Exp01�'t Spec i e:\! i st s, Inc., and; ( b) that th~ memoranda preparP d by the Cu s toms officers concerned <Atty . Manu e l Ro sete, S8 n ior Leg a l Offic er of the Law Division and Pablo Avestruz , S p ecia l Assistant, Port Operations /'/t/7~ /~ - ./

�- I)FJ.: lS [I)N - ( :. 1. A. Ci1!>P No. t, :_~�Vt ..:::� ..J Branch) con tained mere recommendation which are not binding upon the Collector of Customs, mu c h l ess on respondent Co mm i 5 5 i on e t' o f C 1_1s t o ms � [ R e s po n s e ( To Reque s t f� o ~� Odmission) pp. 9 4 - J-1 to 951 Hen ce , th is a ppeal. In the narr atio n of facts by the Petition er whi c h a ,.-> a who l f?, was n ot obje cte d by the Respond e nt, this Co Ut't obset�'ved , that herein Petit i onel'" filed an ~~ppeal with the Cornmissionet�' c� f Customs <Cus tom ~; Cas e No. 87-1 3 ) on Augu st 1G, 1 ':!131, ot' E._iv~- !J.i::~Y..?_ .b-~.t g_t_~-~ t he decision on the se:i. ztw e cas!? o1���rlet" :i.ng the fm"fe :i.ttn�e of the s hi pment in favor of t he government was i s sued on Ru~1ust C.:1 , 1987 . (s e e Ei tatement of Facts , pars. 14 and 1 5 Petit io n for Review) This is not a case of typo graphical error. lhe PetitioneY' has been consi s tently r:w es ent:i.ng this chronological d i s t m -- t i on of facls materia l to the c ase from the filing of the Pe t i t ion fm�� Rev iew tel the Request fot' ndmi ssinn of ~acts up to the fjling of the Memot'a n dum. in the d e t et�' n i nat :io n of the Y'unni ng of the pt� e s ct� i ptiv e r:�eY' i utj f il i ng an appeal. R~�spo nd e nt also faile d to noti c e such Both �.~' o u n s e 1 s o f t he go vernment and the I /?z7 -655

- DFJ.: (~ [I)N - ( :. 1. H. (:c-,~�- No. Ll344 petitioner~ admonished to take cautionary in presenting the fa~ts in order not to put thi s Court in �quanrlary a s to where to start the countinq of the runni ng of the 15- rlay reglamentary p e r~ i o cl f o r~ a p r-� e a l f r�� o m t h e D e r.- i ~~ :i o n o f C o l 1 e c t o r~ o f Custo ms the Com mi r~ s ion et~ of Customs under ~ Section 2313 of the l ar iff and Customs Code. lhe reglementary period prescribed by law for an appeal in cases of forfeiture is not a matter of procedur~ e 1--Jh i c h the may ignor~e. The pr-ovi sio n s of the Cu st oms L a w, like those of the inte rna l revenue code are not directory merely but mandat or~ y. l-Ienee, the im rlor�� tance of ~<now:i.n~J the fact u<:\ 1 dates in to determine the reglementary period for appeal. l"he need to know the fa c tual dates i s also essent ia J in determining the jurisdiction of the Unci er~ HP.ct ion 7 in r~E' l at ion to Sect :i. on 11 of Republic Ac t No. 1 u ::5 a taxpayet" affected by the decision of the Com mi ssioner of Custom may file an appe .3l I I -Cb8

- Ot-:CISIIJN - l :. T. H. l:.:t~e No. 4344 -- 7 - ln the case at bar , Pet ition er received on J anual�' y ;:~ o, l 'JHB the adve t's e t'ul ing of th e Commissioner�� of L r.t�;toms d ate d December' 1 ~ , 1'387. It filed a Motion for Recons id eration on the Decision on J.an r..tat' Y l '3 8B. Un Januat' Y r�,c- 1989, c.~, Petiti o ner' , t' ecel.ved an Order from the respondent denying i t s trlnt ion f Dr' Recon s i d er�� at ion. On \.�' R e co r' d s ) ,> r:.� e t it i one r�� f :i. 1 e cl :it s ~.c e t it :i. on f cw Review i n t h i s C o r��w t . analysis nf the c ht' onological n ca r��efr..t l event s that tr' a n s pir ��e d Us to the conc lu si on filed out of time. lhe running of the period should comm ence fr' om t h e <:la t!? o f t' e c eipt of the Decision o f the t'es pond f? n t on Jan tt C:H'Y 20 , 1':38 8 and J a nuar�- y C.:~::; , :1. '3 n3 ~" h :i. c h i s t h e d at e o f' t ' e c e i p t of the denial of the Moti on for Reco n sideration. The filing of the JY1otion for' Re co n si der��a t ion only tolled the running of the p l�' e scr i pt i v e pet' i od. But, it h as all �� eacl y commenced runnin!;_l as of January ;~ o, l'JB8 . It co ntintted r' UIHling on .Tanuar'y ;::: 5, 198'3 u p t o F- e b t' 1..1 at' y i.7: 5 , 1 ':3 8 9 � F- Y' o m ~Ta nuar'Y 20, 1988 vJh ic h is the dat e o f receipt of the Decision to Januat' Y .:=: ~j , l '38 E! , t h e cl at e r:.� e t i t i o n e t ' f i 1 e d i t s

- DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4344 �- 8 -- Motion f o Re c o n ~.; i cl e t ' at i o n , f i v e d a y s h a v e be e n consumed. Wh !? n t h ~? pet' i od started t'unn i ng ag a in on J an u at'Y 1989 the date of of the denial o f t he Motion for Reconsideration to Febt' �tat' Y ~~ 5, 1 ~J89 , ~�Jhen the petit i on fot' t'e view was filed befor- e thi s thirty-one day s hav e elap sed ot' a tot a l of thit' ty -six (3 6 ) days. Cle .:n - ly t h e Petitio n for Rev iew wa s filed out of time. In a v et'Y si mila t' case of Phi 1 s. I nt' 1. Stn' et y Co. , Inc. , ,v.1(::.>. . C ommissioner of Customs, <CTA Case No. 11 83, Oct. 7 , 1963) this Cotn-t said, thus: " The records show that from the time Ro sa t' i o Co mmet'C ia 1 t'eceived the decisin1 ~ ppeal P rl from o n Nove mb er 28, 196 1 to t he day it fil ed its motion for r ec o n sider~tio n on December 28 , 1961 , exactly thirty days ela p sPd . From i ts receipt of the order denying the mot ion fen' t'econs :i. det' a tion o n Feb t' Uat' Y c~3 , 19 6 ~~ to the f i lin g of the p eti tion f o r review i n thi s ~a se on Marc h 22, 1962 s even d a y s p ,:> s s P cl � n 1 1 i n a l l , p e t i t i o n e t ' s ro n s um ~d ~7 d ~ys in perfPct ing its appea l . S uch b e ing the cas e, this Court is wit hout jurisdiction to entertain th e appeal." N P c~ cjl ess to emp h <..~size , th i s Si:l.me is l:i.kPwi s e wi tl��nu t j �.l r' i s d i c t i o n pt'e Sr! nt appea.l.

- DECISION - C.T.A. Case No. 4344 - '3 - ACCORDINGLY, this petition for review is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. Quezon City, Mett~o Manila, July 7, 19'33. I GRUBA Judge WE CONCUR: RA~, l!o~~.t Associate J�~~reH CE;:RTIFICATION I hereby certify that this decision was reached after due consultation among the members of the Court of Tax Appeals in a c cordance with Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution. ~~-~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Judge Court of Tax Appeals