Court of Tax Appeals
0CTA Case No. 769
REPURLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF TAX APPEAI#
QUEZON CITY
ial
qe
\o'
JUANITO C. GARCIA, Te
. Petitioner,
Vereus C. Te Ae CASE HO. 769
THE COMMISSIONER OF
CUSTOMS,
Respondent.
DECISIOS
This is an appeal from the decision of the Conm-
missioner of Customs dated January 5, 1960, affirming -
that of the Acting Collector of Customs in Seizure Iden-
tification No, 2170, ordering petitioner and the surety
(Paramount Surety & Insurance, o., Inc.) to pay, jointly
and severally, the sum of 76,231.00, representing the ~
appraised velue of 200 tins safety matches which were
seized for alleged violation of Centrel Benk Circulars
Nos. Y and 45, in relation to Sections 1363(f) and
1250 of the Revised Administrative Code.
The facts of the case may be briefly stated as
follows: .
On November 15, 195%, 200 tins safety matches from
Hongkong, consigned to petitioner, arrived in Manils
on board the S/S “Patagonia”. Yor lack of the corre-
sponding license and release certificate issued by
the Central Bank, the said merchandise vere seized by
the Bureau of Customs for violation of Central Senk .
Cipoulars Nos. 4% and 45, in relation to Sections
1363(f) end 1250 of the Revised Administrative Code,
_
DECISION «
CTA CASE NO. 769
Pending the seisure proceedings, the said articles
were released to petitioner under Surety Bond No. 54/
4671 executed by the Paramount Surety @ Insurance Co.,
Ine. in the sum of 26,231.00. —
On May 31, 1955, the Acting Collector of Customs
rendered a decision decreeing the forfeiture of the
merchandise and ordering petitioner and the surety to
. pay, jointly and severally, the sum of °6,231.00 with-
fin thirty (30) days from demand for payment. On ap-
peal to the Commissioner of Customs, respondent here-
in, the decision was affirmed on January 5, 1960.
Petitioner received the decision of the Commis-
sioner of Customs on January &, 1960 (p. 26, Customs
recs), and on February 8, 1960 he filed a motion for
reconsideration thereof (ps 10, Customs ree.). This
motion was denied by respondent in an order dated
February 15, 1960 (pe 9, Customs rec.) which was
received by petitioner on February 16, 1960 (ns 6,
Customs rec.). On Merch 4, 1960, petitioner filed
another motion for reconsideration (p. 2, Customs
rec.) which was likewise denied by respondent in a
letter dated April 7, 1960 (p. 1, Customs ree.). On
April 8, 1960, petitioner filed the instant petition
for review in this Court (p. 1, ©. Te As recs).
In his answer, respondent raised as one of his
affirmative defenses the question of juri sdigtion,
contending that the petition for review does not show
thet it was filed on time. .
374
el ee ~ eS
ee ae ee ee
DECISION -
CTA CASE NO. 769 3 “The issues for our determination are the follow snes
(1) imether or not this Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the present — and and in accordance with le On the basis of the mane this case, it is obvious that the appeal of petitioner was filed out of time. On February &, 1960, when petitioner filed his first motion for reconsideration of the decision of respondent, the thirty (30) day period for appeal preseribed in Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125 had already expired inasmuch as petitioner received the decision of respondent on January 8, 1960. This Court, therefore, has no jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal, At any rate, the legality of the forfeiture of goods imported in violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 has already been finally upheld by the Supreme Court. (See Andres BE. Lazgero ve. Com. of Cus- toms, G. R. Nos, 1+22511 & 122513, May 16, 19665 | Bienvenido Capulong v. Comm. of Customs, G. R. Mos Ln 22990, May 19, 1966, end cases cited therein.)
WHEREPORE, the herein petition for review is hereby dismissed, with costs against the petitioner,
SO ORDERED,
QUEZON CITY, December 6, Ms 0 ne ROMAN M, WALI ne
Presiding Toace
a a ee 375 h ee ape