G.R. No. 134114. July 6, 2001.
NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. (FORMERLY FILIPRO, INC.), petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS and COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Nestle Philippines, Inc., engaged in importing milk and milk products, made sixteen separate importations between July and November 1984. The Collector of Customs of Manila assessed and collected customs duties and advance sales taxes based on published Home Consumption Values. Petitioner paid under protest and filed corresponding protests from October to December 1984, claiming erroneous application of higher values and seeking refund of overpaid import duties (P5,008,029.00) and advance sales taxes (P4,564,179.30). For the advance sales taxes, petitioner filed a formal claim with the Bureau of Internal Revenue on October 14, 1986, and a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA Case No. 4114) on October 15, 1986. The CTA ruled in petitioner’s favor on January 3, 1994, ordering a refund. For the customs duties, the Collector of Customs failed to render a decision on the protests for almost six years. To prevent prescription, petitioner filed a petition for review with the CTA (CTA Case No. 4478) on August 2, 1990, despite the absence of a ruling from the Collector or the Commissioner of Customs. The CTA dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction on May 30, 1995, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals on September 23, 1997. The appellate court held that the CTA’s jurisdiction was not concurrent, that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and that it did not move for early resolution or treat inaction as a denial. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on June 9, 1998.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Tax Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s petition for review for refund of overpaid customs duties on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Court of Tax Appeals. The Court held that the CTA correctly dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Under Section 2402 of the Tariff and Customs Code, an appeal to the CTA from a ruling of the Commissioner of Customs is only available “in the manner and within the period prescribed by law and regulations.” Since there was no ruling or decision from the Commissioner of Customs on petitioner’s protests, the CTA had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The Court also ruled that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies was applicable, and petitioner’s immediate resort to the CTA was not justified. The pendency of the protest before the Collector of Customs did not interrupt the running of the prescriptive period for filing a judicial action, as the Collector is not a court. However, this did not excuse the failure to obtain a decision from the Commissioner before appealing to the CTA. The Court further held that the prior favorable ruling in CTA Case No. 4114 for refund of advance sales taxes did not automatically entitle petitioner to a refund of customs duties, as these are distinct claims governed by different laws and procedures.