G.R. No. 176380; June 18, 2009
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, Petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation (Shell) is a domestic corporation engaged in importation. In 1997 and 1998, it settled customs duties and internal revenue taxes using Tax Credit Certificates (TCCs) transferred to it by BOI-registered companies, with the transfers approved by the One Stop Shop Inter-Agency Tax Credit and Duty Drawback Center (the Center). The Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and Bureau of Customs (BOC) accepted these TCCs as payment. On November 3, 1999, the Center informed Shell it was cancelling the TCCs pursuant to an EXCOM Resolution, having found they were fraudulently secured by the original grantees, and required Shell to pay the corresponding amounts. Shell objected, claiming denial of due process. The Commissioner of Customs, through a letter dated November 19, 1999, demanded Shell replace the amount. Later, through letters dated February 15, February 20, and April 12, 2002, the respondent, via Deputy Commissioner Atty. Gil Valera, formally demanded payment within five days, warning of legal action. Shell replied to the February letters. Before replying to the April letter, Shell received a summons on April 23, 2002, for a collection case filed by the respondent in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). On May 23, 2002, Shell filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) questioning the collection efforts. The respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the ground of prescription, arguing it was filed beyond the 30-day period from receipt of the collection letters. Shell countered, citing Yabes v. Flojo, that the filing of the collection case in court constituted the final decision, making its petition timely filed from receipt of the summons. The CTA denied the motion to dismiss, ruling the collection letters were issued by a subordinate and thus the filing of the collection case was the appealable final decision. The Court of Appeals reversed the CTA, holding the collection letters were the respondent’s final rulings, appealable to the CTA, and that Atty. Valera had authority under delegated memoranda. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

Whether Shell’s Petition for Review filed with the CTA was filed within the 30-day reglementary period, which hinges on what act constitutes the final decision of the Commissioner of Customs appealable to the CTA.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED Shell’s petition. It held that the case was not a tax protest case within the CTA’s jurisdiction. The Court ruled that the act of the Commissioner of Customs that may be appealed to the CTA is his decision on a protest against the liquidation of an import entry. In this case, there was no protest filed by Shell against any liquidation. The demand letters and subsequent court action were for the collection of amounts based on the cancellation of the TCCs, which was a separate issue from protesting a customs liquidation. The Court distinguished the cited case of Yabes v. Flojo, which involved a protest of an assessment under the National Internal Revenue Code, not customs duties. Since Shell did not file a protest against the liquidation of its import entries, there was no decision of the Commissioner on a protest for it to appeal to the CTA. Therefore, Shell’s petition before the CTA was improperly filed and should be dismissed. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision setting aside the CTA’s resolutions and effectively dismissing Shell’s CTA case.