Court of Tax Appeals decisions: When are they final or not?
By: Atty. Aziza Hannah A. Bacay on May 15,2025
DECISIONS and rulings by the Commissioner of Customs (COC) may be appealed before the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) within 30 days from receipt of such decision or ruling. This is in contrast with the CTA’s scope of jurisdiction on matters from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR), as it includes the CIR’s decisions, rulings and even inactions.
The CTA in one case (CTA Case 10581, Nov. 13, 2024) confirmed that it does not have jurisdiction over the inaction by the COC on claims for refund of alleged overcharged duties. The CTA cited the following provisions:
Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) 1125, as amended by RA 9282: This section grants the CTA appellate jurisdiction over the “decisions” of the COC in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto; or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs.
Section 1136 of the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act (CMTA): This provision allows a party aggrieved by a “ruling or decision” of the COC to appeal to the CTA.
These provisions explicitly grant the CTA jurisdiction over the COC’s “rulings” or “decisions,” but not its inaction.
This distinction is further emphasized by the Revised Rules of the CTA (RRCTA). Section 3(a) of Rule 8 of the RRCTA differentiates between actions and claims filed with the CIR and the COC. While the inaction of the CIR is appealable to the CTA, the inaction of the COC is not.
When inaction of the COC is appealable
Nonetheless, there are cases that, due to justifiable circumstances, the courts took cognizance of an appeal despite involving inaction of the district collector.
In one case (GR 134114, July 6, 2001), the Supreme Court pointed out that the inaction of the collector of Customs of Manila on a claim for refund for six years has caused the petitioner to elevate the matter to the CTA. The Supreme Court then remanded the case back to CTA for the determination of the validity of the claim.
Similarly, in another case (CTA EB Case 2451, Nov. 24, 2022), the CTA en banc affirmed its jurisdiction on the petition for review filed by the importer after the district collector failed to act on the administrative claim for refund for four years. The CTA en banc pointed that there appears to be an unreasonable delay on the part of the district collector resulting in the importer’s prejudice.
In both cases, the courts did not specifically identify the period wherein an importer may proceed to appeal in case of inaction of the COC.
The CTA en banc, however, took a different and inconsistent position in one of its decisions (CTA EB 1973, July14, 2020). This case likewise involves an inaction on a claim for refund which was elevated to the CTA. Unlike the other cases, there is no justifiable circumstance of delay on the part of the COC or district collector.
Despite this, the CTA acknowledged that it has jurisdiction over an appeal even in the absence of a ruling or decision from COC. It explained that since the protest was already filed with the COC, the COC’s inaction should not prejudice the right of the petitioner to claim its refund. Note that the applicable customs law in this case was the old Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, which is now already amended by the CMTA.
‘Deemed affirmed’ in forfeiture cases
Section 1126 of the CMTA specifically provides a “deemed affirmed” provision where, if there is no decision by the COC, the denial by the district collector shall be deemed affirmed.
This provision contemplates a scenario where an appeal from a district collector’s denial is lodged with the COC, but the COC does not issue a decision within the prescribed 30-day period from receipt of records from the district collector (or 15 days if involving perishable goods). The aggrieved party must then file the judicial appeal to the CTA within the expiration of the period to render the decision.
Thus, in one case (CTA Case 10523, Feb. 27, 2025), the CTA held that the “deemed affirmed” provision of the CMTA serves as the action of the COC, which is appealable to the CTA. In this case, however, the CTA declared that the judicial appeal was filed out of time because the petitioner should have counted the 30-day period to appeal from the expiration of the COC’s 30-day period to render a decision reckoned from the transmittal of records by the district collector.
Aziza Hannah A. Bacay is a senior associate of Mata-Perez, Tamayo & Francisco (MTF Counsel). Email her at info@mtfcounsel.com or visit www.mtfcounsel.com.