Court of Tax Appeals
0Redo Leg of Ete Phultppin Ks ° Culk P| Do Apes Ls Wo Titiw Cup? “Armstrong Export vs. ~ Hon. Ramon Farolan
.'1 r:. : --• , ~ (~ • --; "", r,. r 11 ~ u r r I!~ r.;·
Lu l H 1
•
:
'. :- ,' L .1L:1
i..o ' 1'--• ' J '
t. i i' {
/ ARMSTRONG EXPORT,
Petitioner,
-
versus
C.T.A. CASE NO. 33i0
HON. RAMON FAROLAN, in his
capacity as Commissioner of
Customs,
Respondent 0
X -
-
-
-
-
-
.... -
-
... X
D E C I S I 0 N
o/2( lw
This refers to a petition t o review the
order of respondent, Commissioner of Customs,
date3 June 25, 1981 remanding the case to the
office of the Collector of customs.
It appears that petitioner is a claimant
in Seizure Identification No. 71-81, entitled
Republic of the Ph ilippines vs. Twelve (12)
Containers of Assorted Foodstuffs in 8,750 Car-
tons.
On April 21, 1981 claimant, through
counsel, wrote the Collector of Customs manifest-
ing its desire to secure the release of the
merch~ndise in quest ion consisting ot twelve
( 12) containers of foodstuffs und(~r bo nd.
On April 28, 1981, the Collecto r of Cus toms
issued an order denying the reque s t o t claiindnt
for the release under bond of the above aticles.
Subsequently, on May 4, 1981 , claimant
through counsel, filed a motion for reconsider-
ation of the order of the Coll!':'C t nc •· f
C u !; t~oms
G5
DECISION
CTA CASE NOe 33i0 - 2 - dated April 28• 198 1 on grounds of errors or irregularities c ommitted in the appreciation of the reques t for release under bond• which motion was denied on May 11. 1981 by the
Collector of Customs @
Petitio ner thereaft e r f i led a notice o f appeal with the Collector of Customs p sign ifying therefor~ the i ntentio n on its part to e l evate the c ase to the Commissioner of Customs . On May 21, 1981~ petitioner fil ed its petition for r e view with the Commiss i oner of Customs. On June 19, 1981, petitioner filed a . "Petition For Resolution o f Petition" preci- pitated apparently by the delay in the making of the resolution by res pondent Commissioner of Customs on the petitio n for review.
Consequent-
ly, on June 25, 1981, respondent Commissioner , instead of resolving the petition for review, issued an order remanding the case to the office of the Collector of Customs for the purpose of continuing with t he hearing on the merits of the case.
Hence, this appeal .
The issues to be resolved are, t o wit : 1 ) Whether or not this Court acqu ire d jurisdiction over the ca s e;
2) Whether or not Lhe p r o vi s i (' n :; of
GG
L
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 33i0 - 3 - Section 230 1 of the Tarif f and Customs Code is mandatory, and in the a ffirma tive ; and 3) Whether o r not petitioner is entitled to the re l ease o f the shipment . w-ith respect to the first issue as to whether or not this Cour t a cquire d jurisdictio n over the case, the a ppropriate provision of the law appli- cable in this case is Section 7(2) o f Republic Act 1125, which we quote :
SEC, 7.
J urisdiction,- 'I'he Cour t of Tax Appeals shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by a~al, as herein provided -
XXX
XXX
XXX
(2)
Decisions of the Commissioner
of Cus toms i n cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other mor~y charges; seizure, detention or release of pr6perty affected ; fines, fo rfeitures or other penalties impose~ i n relation thereto; or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other law or part of law administered by the Bureau o f Customs. Under the above-quoted provision, it is very clear that this Court has no j uri s ~i ction over the present appeal.
What is appealed here is an interlocutory order.
An interlocutory order is one which is -not final in character and do not involve a decision of the case on its merito The order of the Collector of Customs denying the r eleas e of the shipment to petitioner wh ich was the subject of appeal to the Commis s.ic.' tH~r nt Customs was a mere i ncident of th e per, rl inq ~;f"-L'; UL"' proceedings i n Seizure Proceeding ~c . 71 - 81 .
. . '
DECISION
CTA CASE NO. 33i0 - 4- - That is precisely the reason why th~ Commissioner of Customs issued a n order remanding the case to the office of the Collector of Customs.
Therefore*
the order of the Commis s i oner of Customs i s not appealable to this Court.
Having h eld that this Court has no jur is-· diction, we will no longer discuss the l ast t wo {2) issues for having become moot and~ademic.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED"
Quezon City, Metro Manila, March 21, . 1983~
WE CONCUR:
~QJ
AMANTE ,FILLER Presidi&g J 11dge 68 - CON3.TANTE C. ROAQUIN