Case Digest (G.R. No. 169352)
Facts:
Commissioner of Customs v. Gelmart Industries Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 169352, February 13, 2009, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.The petitioner is the Commissioner of Customs; the respondent is Gelmart Industries Philippines, Inc. (Gelmart), a bonded manufacturer authorized to operate Bonded Manufacturing Warehouse No. G-39 and holding import licenses Nos. 077-99 and 048468 permitting the importation of “FABRICS/YARNS/LEATHERS/SUBMATERIALS” for re-exportation. In August 1999 Gelmart received three consignments of textile materials (Entries Nos. 44780-99, 46269-99, and 46297-99) declared as various “100% polyester knitted fabrics” and “100% cotton knitted fabrics.”
Prompted by the Warehouse and Assessment Monitoring Unit’s recommendation, the Commissioner of Customs required 100% examination of shipments consigned to Gelmart. Inspectors reported that the shipments contained (as examined) cotton fabrics with 3% spandex, 100% polyester polar fleece and other fleece textile materials that, in the Bureau of Customs’ (BOC) view, were not needed by Gelmart’s then-operational bra-and-lace divisions and therefore might be inconsistent with Gelmart’s import licenses and GTEB rules. The BOC, relying on these findings and on internal recommendations that raised issues of misrepresentation, subcontracting and abuse of BMW privileges, issued Warrants of Seizure and Detention (WSDs) and subsequently, on November 19, 1999, issued seizure orders alleging violations of the Tariff and Customs Code (Section 2530 paras. (f) and (l) subparas. 3, 4 and 5).
After administrative protest, the District Collector of Customs, in a Decision dated August 9, 2001, ordered forfeiture of the shipments. The Commissioner affirmed that forfeiture in a Decision dated May 16, 2002. Gelmart appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). On August 15, 2005, a CTA Division (pen. J. Bautista) reversed the forfeiture, lifted the WSDs and ordered release of the shipments conditioned on payment of correct duties and taxes; upon motion the CTA clarified on January 6, 2006 that the shipments should be released without payment of duties and taxes because they were imported tax- and duty-free for re‑exportation.
The Commissioner filed the present petition with the Supreme Court dated October 4, 2005 seeking review of the CTA Division’s decision. In its pleadings Gelmart argued (among other defenses) that the Court of Tax Appeals’ Division decision had become final under Republic Act No. 9282 (the CTA reform law) because the Commissioner failed to file a motion for reconsiderati...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to entertain the petition when the petitioner failed to file a motion for reconsideration before the CTA Division or a petition for review with the CTA en banc as required by Republic Act No. 9282?
- Were the subject shipments misdeclared and therefore properly forfeitable under the Tariff and Customs Code?
- Did Gelmart exceed the scope of its import licenses or unlawfully subcontract manufacturing in violation of GTEB rules and ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)