Title
Ace Publication, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs
Case
G.R. No. L-18808
Decision Date
May 29, 1964
Ace Publication sought refunds for erroneously collected customs duties on imported newsprints. CTA dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, citing no prior decision from customs officials. Supreme Court affirmed, ruling the petition premature.
Font Size:

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-18808)

Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals

  • The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) lacks jurisdiction to review non-action on a petition for refund of customs duties if there is no decision made by the Collector or Commissioner of Customs.
  • The CTA can dismiss a petition for review motu proprio if it determines that it does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Background of the Case

  • The petitioner, Ace Publication, Inc., imported newsprints for publishing magazines and claimed that the Collector of Customs had illegally assessed and collected customs duties amounting to P6,000.00.
  • Petitioner made several requests for refunds to the Collector of Customs, which went unanswered, prompting them to escalate the matter to the Commissioner of Customs.
  • The Commissioner also failed to respond, leading the petitioner to file a Petition for Review with the CTA on February 9, 1961, citing the lack of administrative remedies.

Motion to Dismiss and CTA's Resolution

  • The respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 3, 1961, arguing that the CTA lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a decision from the Collector or Commissioner of Customs.
  • The CTA dismissed the petition for review on May 29, 1961, stating that without a decision from the relevant customs officials, the petition was premature.

Petitioner’s Arguments on Appeal

  • The petitioner contended that the CTA erred in dismissing the petition for review, asserting that the CTA had jurisdiction based on previous case law.
  • The petitioner argued that the interpretation of the law should be consistent for customs and internal revenue taxpayers regarding refunds.

Court's Analysis of Jurisdiction

  • The court found no merit in the petitioner’s argument, clarifying that the cited case did not address the specific provisions of the law governing customs.
  • The court emphasized that there was no decision or ruling from the Collector or Commissioner of Customs, making the petition for review premature.

Interpretation of Relevant Statutes

  • The court noted that the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and the Tariff and Customs Code are distinct, and the procedures for seeking refunds differ.
  • There is no statutory provision allowing importers to bypass the decision of customs officials before appealing to the CTA.

CTA's Authority to Dismiss Motu Proprio

  • The petitioner claimed that the CTA could not dismiss the petition motu proprio, bu...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.