Posted by: Michelle M. Bacarra | July 24, 2018
FACTS:
Ace Publication, Inc. (API), wrote 6 letters, which claims refund of the aggregate amount of PHP86,000 to the Collector of Customs, which API claimed to had been erroneously and illegally assessed and collected on the imported newsprints used by API in the publication of magazines. All claims went unheeded thereby impelled API to bring the matter before the Commissioner of Customs.
FACTS:
Ace Publication, Inc. (API), wrote 6 letters, which claims refund of the aggregate amount of PHP86,000 to the Collector of Customs, which API claimed to had been erroneously and illegally assessed and collected on the imported newsprints used by API in the publication of magazines. All claims went unheeded thereby impelled API to bring the matter before the Commissioner of Customs.
API asked for review of the alleged erroneous and/or illegal assessments and collections and to authorize the refund thereof to it. Customs Commissioner did not give attention on the matter so API brought to the Court of Tax Appeals a Petition for Review containing 6 causes of action.
API invoked that inaction on the part of Collector of Customs and Customs Commissioner left them without any other administrative remedy. The Solicitor General presented a Motion to Dismiss on the ground of Lack of Jurisdiction of the CTA. API filed a Motion for Reconsideration, averring that the CTA erred in finding that it has no jurisdiction over its Petition for Review.
ISSUE:
Whether or not CTA has jurisdiction over a subject matter not yet resolved by either the Collector of Customs or Customs Commissioner.
HELD:
No. That there is no decision or ruling by the Collector of Customs or Commissioner of Customs on the requests of appellant for refund, is abundantly clear from the very allegations in the petition. Pursuant, therefore, the presentation of the Petition for Review with the CTA was premature, for as things stood then, there was nothing to review.
There is no statutory grant for importers claiming refund of duties to go directly to the CTA, without awaiting the decision of the Collector of Customs or Commissioner of Customs. For one thing, the Collector or Commissioner may order the refund of the taxes in question, in which event a review would not be necessary.
Moreover, it is provided that whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter, it shall dismiss the action (Sec. 2, Rule 9, New Rules). Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their authority and they may, by their own motion, even though the question is not raised by the pleadings, or not even suggested by counsel, recognize the want of jurisdiction and act accordingly by staying pleadings, dismissing the action, or otherwise noticing the defect, at any stage of the proceedings.
ISSUE:
Whether or not CTA has jurisdiction over a subject matter not yet resolved by either the Collector of Customs or Customs Commissioner.
HELD:
No. That there is no decision or ruling by the Collector of Customs or Commissioner of Customs on the requests of appellant for refund, is abundantly clear from the very allegations in the petition. Pursuant, therefore, the presentation of the Petition for Review with the CTA was premature, for as things stood then, there was nothing to review.
There is no statutory grant for importers claiming refund of duties to go directly to the CTA, without awaiting the decision of the Collector of Customs or Commissioner of Customs. For one thing, the Collector or Commissioner may order the refund of the taxes in question, in which event a review would not be necessary.
Moreover, it is provided that whenever it appears that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter, it shall dismiss the action (Sec. 2, Rule 9, New Rules). Courts are bound to take notice of the limits of their authority and they may, by their own motion, even though the question is not raised by the pleadings, or not even suggested by counsel, recognize the want of jurisdiction and act accordingly by staying pleadings, dismissing the action, or otherwise noticing the defect, at any stage of the proceedings.
