GR L 9274; (February, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9274 February 1, 1957
RUFINO LOPEZ & SONS, INC., petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Rufino Lopez & Sons, Inc. imported hexagonal wire netting. The Manila Collector of Customs initially assessed and collected customs duties based on consular and suppliers invoices. Subsequently, the Collector reassessed the importation based on the freight value and levied additional customs duties of P1,966.59. Petitioner failed to secure a reconsideration and appealed directly to the Court of Tax Appeals. The Solicitor General moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Tax Court, citing Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, dismissed the appeal, holding it had no jurisdiction to review decisions of the Collector of Customs. Petitioner appealed this dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Tax Appeals has jurisdiction to review by appeal a decision of the Collector of Customs.
RULING
No. The Court of Tax Appeals has no jurisdiction to review decisions of the Collector of Customs. The jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals, as defined in Section 7 of Republic Act No. 1125, is exclusively appellate over decisions of the Commissioner of Customs, not the Collector of Customs. While Section 11 of the same Act mentions appeals from decisions of the “Collector of Customs,” this is a clerical error. The correct reference should be to the “Commissioner of Customs” to harmonize with Section 7 and the structure of the Customs Law. Under the Customs Law (Revised Administrative Code), a person aggrieved by a Collector’s decision must first appeal administratively to the Commissioner of Customs (Section 1380). The Court of Tax Appeals’ appellate jurisdiction attaches only after the Commissioner has rendered a decision. The literal interpretation of Section 11 advanced by the petitioner would lead to absurdity, contravene the legislative intent, and disrupt the administrative review process. Therefore, the resolution of the Court of Tax Appeals dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed.