CHEVRON PHILIPPINES vs.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

G.R. No. 178759, August 11, 2008

FACTS:

Chevron Philippines, Inc. is engaged in the business of importing, distributing and marketing of
petroleum products in the Philippines. In 1996, the importations subjects of this case arrived and were
covered by eight bills of lading.

Subsequently, the Import Entry Declarations (IEDs) were filed and 90% of the total customs duties were
paid. The Import Entry and Internal Revenue Declarations (IEIRDs) of the shipments were thereafter
filed.

ENTRY PRODUCT ARRIVAL IED IEIRD

DATE
NO.
606-96 66,229,960 liters 3/8/1996 3/12/1996 5/10/1996

Nan Hai Crude Oil

604-96 6,990,712 liters 3/18/1996 3/26/1996 5/10/1996

Reformate
605-96 16,651,177 liters 3/21/1996 3/26/1996 5/10/1996

FCCU Feed Stock

600-96 236,317,862 liters 3/26/1996 3/28/1996 5/10/1996

601-96 Oman/Dubai Crude Oil

602-96

603-96
818-96 51,878,114 liters 4/10/1996 4/10/1996 6/21/1996

Arab Crude Oil

The importations were appraised at a duty rate of 3% as provided under RA 8180 and petitioner paid the
import duties. Prior to the effectivity of RA 8180 on April 16, 1996, the rate of duty on imported crude
oil was 10%.

Three years later, then Finance Secretary received a letter denouncing the deliberate concealment,
manipulation and scheme employed by petitioner in the importation of crude oil, thereby resulting in
huge losses of revenue for the government. This letter was endorsed to the Bureau of Customs (BOC) for
investigation.

On August 1, 2000, petitioner the District Collector required the immediate settlement of the amount of
P73,535,830 representing the difference between the 10% and 3% tariff rates on the shipments.
Petitioner objected to the using of the 10% duty rate and insisted that the 3% tariff rate should instead
be applied. Furthermore it raised the defense of prescription against the assessment pursuant to
Section1603 of the Tariff and Customs Code (TCC). Thus, it prayed that the assessment for deficiency
customs duties be cancelled and the notice of demand be withdrawn.

The Special Investigator found that there was an irregularity in the filing and acceptance of the import
entries beyond the 30-day non-extendible period prescribed under Section 1301 of the TCC and in the
release of the shipments after the same had already been deemed abandoned in favor of the
government.

CTA en banc: The filing of the IEIRDs that constituted entry under the TCC. Since these were filed
beyond the 30-day period, they were not seasonably "entered" in accordance with Section 1301 in
relation to Section 205 of the TCC. Consequently, they were deemed abandoned under Sections 1801
and 1802 of the TCC. It also ruled that the notice required under Customs Memorandum Order No. 15-
94 (CMO 15-94) was not necessary in view of petitioner’s actual knowledge of the arrival of the
shipments. It likewise agreed with the CTA Division’s finding that petitioner committed fraud when it
failed to file the IEIRD within the 30-day period with the intent to "evade the higher rate."

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not "entry" under Section 1301 in relation to Section 1801 of the TCC refers to the IED or
the IEIRD;

2. Whether or not fraud was perpetrated by petitioner; and

3. Whether or not the importations can be considered abandoned under Section 1801.

HELD:

1. “Entry" in Sections 1301 and 1801 of the TCC refers to both IED and IEIRD.

Under Section 1301 of the TCC, imported articles must be entered within a non-extendible
period of 30 days from the date of discharge of the last package from a vessel. Otherwise, the
BOC will deem the imported goods impliedly abandoned under Section 1801. Thus:

Section 1301. Persons Authorized to Make Import Entry. - Imported articles must be
entered in the customhouse at the port of entry within thirty (30) days, which shall not
be extendible from date of discharge of the last package from the vessel or aircraft
either (a) by the importer, being holder of the bill of lading, (b) by a duly licensed
customs broker acting under authority from a holder of the bill or (c) by a person duly
empowered to act as agent or attorney-in-fact for each holder: Provided, That where
the entry is filed by a party other than the importer, said importer shall himself be
required to declare under oath and under the penalties of falsification or perjury that
the declarations and statements contained in the entry are true and correct: Provided,
further, That such statements under oath shall constitute prima facie evidence of
knowledge and consent of the importer of violation against applicable provisions of this
Code when the importation is found to be unlawful. (Emphasis supplied)
 Section 1801. Abandonment, Kinds and Effect of. - An imported article is deemed
abandoned under any of the following circumstances:

xxx xxx xxx

b. When the owner, importer, consignee or interested party after due notice,
fails to file an entry within thirty (30) days, which shall not be extendible, from
the date of discharge of the last package from the vessel or aircraft, or having
filed such entry, fails to claim his importation within fifteen (15) days, which
shall not likewise be extendible, from the date of posting of the notice to claim
such importation. (Emphasis supplied)

The term "entry" in customs law has a triple meaning. It means (1) the documents filed at the
customs house; (2) the submission and acceptance of the documents and (3) the procedure of
passing goods through the customs house.

The IED serves as basis for the payment of advance duties on importations whereas the IEIRD
evidences the final payment of duties and taxes. The question is: was the filing of the IED
sufficient to constitute "entry" under the TCC?

The law itself, in Section 205, defines the meaning of the technical term "entered" as used in the
TCC:

Section 205. Entry, or Withdrawal from Warehouse, for Consumption. - Imported articles shall
be deemed "entered" in the Philippines for consumption when the specified entry form is
properly filed and accepted, together with any related documents regained by the provisions of
this Code and/or regulations to be filed with such form at the time of entry, at the port or
station by the customs official designated to receive such entry papers and any duties, taxes,
fees and/or other lawful charges required to be paid at the time of making such entry have been
paid or secured to be paid with the customs official designated to receive such monies, provided
that the article has previously arrived within the limits of the port of entry.

xxx xxx xxx

Clearly, the operative act that constitutes "entry" of the imported articles at the port of entry is
the filing and acceptance of the "specified entry form" together with the other documents
required by law and regulations. There is no dispute that the "specified entry form" refers to
the IEIRD. Section 205 defines the precise moment when the imported articles are deemed
"entered."

2. Evidence showed that petitioner bided its time to file the IEIRD so as to avail of a lower rate of
duty. A clear indication of petitioner's deliberate intention to defraud the government was its
non-disclosure of discrepancies on the duties declared in the IEDs (10%) and IEIRDs (3%)
covering the shipments.

Due to the presence of fraud, the prescriptive period of the finality of liquidation under Section
1603 was inapplicable.
3. Petitioner's failure to file the required entries within a non-extendible period of thirty days from
date of discharge of the last package from the carrying vessel constituted implied abandonment
of its oil importations. This means that from the precise moment that the non-extendible thirty-
day period lapsed, the abandoned shipments were deemed the property of the government.

Therefore, when petitioner withdrew the oil shipments for consumption, it appropriated for
itself properties which already belonged to the government. Accordingly, it became liable for
the total dutiable value of the shipments of imported crude oil amounting to P1,210,280,789.21
reduced by the total amount of duties paid amounting to P316,499,021.00 thereby leaving a
balance of P893,781,768.21.

Due notice was not necessary in this case. The purpose of posting an "urgent notice to file
entry" is only to notify the importer of the "arrival of its shipment" and the details of said
shipment. Since it already had knowledge of such, notice was superfluous. The oil shipments
were discharged from the carriers docked in its private pier or wharf, into its shore tanks. From
then on, petitioner had actual physical possession of its oil importations. It was thus incumbent
upon it to know its obligation to file the IEIRD within the 30-day period prescribed by law. As a
matter of fact, importers such as petitioner can, under existing rules and regulations, file in
advance an import entry even before the arrival of the shipment to expedite the release of the
same. However, it deliberately chose not to comply with its obligation under Section 1301.

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS vs. MARINA SALES, INC.

G.R. No. 183868, November 22, 2010

FACTS:

Respondent Marina Sales, Inc. (Marina) imports raw materials into the country for the manufacture of
Sunquick juice concentrates. The Bureau of Customs (BOC) used to assess said type of importations
under Tariff Heading H.S. 2106.90 10 with a 1% import duty rate.

On March 6, 2003, Marina’s importation consisting of a total of 80 drums of Sunquick Orange

Concentrate; and of Sunquick Lemon Concentrate, of which Marina computed and paid the duties under
Tariff Harmonized System Heading H.S. 2106.90 10 at 1% import duty rate, was contested by the BOC
examiners.

The BOC examiners recommended to the Collector of Customs, acting as Chairman of the Valuation and
Classification Review Committee (VCRC) of the BOC, to reclassify Marina’s importation as Tariff Heading
H.S. 2106.90 50 (covering composite concentrates for simple dilution with water to make beverages)
with a corresponding 7% import duty rate.
Marina appealed before the Commissioner challenging the reclassification, which was modified by VCRC
but its ruling and classification was not in conformity. Marina interposed a petition for review before the
CTA.

The CTA Second Division ruled in favor of Marina holding that Marinas importations were raw materials
used for the manufacture of its Sunquick products, not ready-to-drink juice concentrates as argued by
the Commissioner.

The Commissioner disagreed and elevated the case to the CTA-En Banc via a petition for review. The CTA
En Banc dismissed the petition stating that petitioner failed to file before the Second Division the
required Motion for Reconsideration before elevating his case to the CTA En Banc as required under
Section 1, Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals RULE 8 PROCEDURE IN CIVIL CASES:

SECTION 1. Review of Cases in the Court En Banc. - In cases falling under the exclusive appellate
jurisdiction of the Court en banc, the petition for review of a decision or resolution of the Court
in Division must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration or new trial
with the Division.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the CTA en banc erred in dismissing the case

2. Whether or not the importations should be classified under tariff harmonized system heading
h.s. 2106.90 10 with an import duty rate of one percent (1%)

HELD:

1. No. The Commissioner failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Rule 8, Section 1 of
the Revised Rules of the Court of Tax Appeals requiring that the petition for review of a decision
or resolution of the Court in Division must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for
reconsideration or new trial with the Division. The word "must" clearly indicates the mandatory
-- not merely directory -- nature of a requirement.

Procedural rules are not to be trifled with or be excused simply because their non-compliance
may have resulted in prejudicing a party’s substantive rights. They may be relaxed only for very
exigent and persuasive reasons to relieve a litigant of an injustice not commensurate to his
careless non-observance of the prescribed rules.
 2. Yes. After examining the records of the case, the Court is of the view that the import duty rate
of 1%, as determined by the CTA Second Division, is correct.

To fit into the category listed under the Tariff Harmonized System Headings calling for a higher
import duty rate of 7%, the imported articles must not lose its original character. In this case,
however, the laboratory analysis of Marina’s samples yielded a different result. The report
supported Marina’s position that the subject importations are not yet ready for human
consumption. To manufacture is to make or fabricate raw materials by hand, art or machinery,
and work into forms convenient for use.

Accordingly, the 1% tariff import duty rate under Tariff Heading H.S. 2106.90 10 was correctly
applied to the subject importations.

JARDELEZA v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 165265, February 6, 2006

FACTS:

Jardeleza, a flight stewardess of PAL, had two pieces of hand-carried luggage upon arrival at the
NAIA. She had the bags examined, and showed the Customs Declaration Form she had
accomplished and signed. The Customs Examiner asked Jardeleza if she had anything to declare,
and the latter replied, No. The examiner then told Jardeleza to place her hanger bag on top of
the examination table and to open it for inspection.

The examiner unzipped the interior pockets of the bag and found pieces of jewelry. Thereafter,
the examiner prepared and signed a report to the district collector, recommending that the
seized jewelleries be confiscated for violation of Sections 3601 and 3602, in relation to Section
2505 of the TCC.

According to Jardeleza, she knew that the jewelry items were taxable, and that she was obliged
to declare them in the Customs Declaration Form of the Customs Bureau but she did not
declare them because they were numerous and could not be accommodated in the tiny form.

The RTC found petitioner guilty for violating Section 3601 of the TCC, as amended. Petitioner
appealed to the CA who affirmed the decision.
Petitioner maintained that she was charged and found guilty of violating Section 2505 of the
TCC. She averred that the provision specifically refers to an arriving person, including airline
crew, who brings in dutiable articles without declaring the same in the customs declaration,
and that for failing to make such declaration or to mention the same verbally may result in the
seizure of the baggage and articles, unless it can be satisfactorily explained that such failure was
without fraud. She avers that the law specifically refers to baggage declaration and not to an
import or export entry.

In contrast, petitioner pointed out that Section 3601 does not speak of any entry or baggage
declaration. Section 3601 is general in its scope, while Section 2505 is special and applies only
to a criminal case following under it. The words contrary to law are descriptive of, and qualifies
the word article and not to the manner of importation. In contrast, Section 3602 refers to the
filing of a false entry.

Petitioner asserted that Sections 2505, 3601 and 3602 of the TCC are separate and distinct from
one another, penalizing as they do different offenses of smuggling.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Section 2505 defines a crime and if it is separate and distinct from Sections
3601 and 3602 of the TCC

RULING:

No. The contention of petitioner that Section 2505 of the TCC defines a crime is not
correct. Title No. VI, Part 4, Section 2505 of the TCC reads:

SEC. 2505. Failure to Declare Baggage. Whenever any dutiable article is found in
the baggage of any person arriving within the Philippines which is not included in
the baggage declaration, such article shall be seized and the person in whose
baggage it is found may obtain release of such article, if not imported contrary to
any law, upon payment of treble and appraised value of such article plus all
duties, taxes and other charges due thereon unless it shall be established to the
satisfaction of the Collector that the failure to mention or declare said dutiable
article was without fraud.

Nothing in this section shall preclude the bringing of criminal action against the
offender.
Adequate reporting by a person arriving in the Philippines of dutiable merchandise is absolutely
necessary to the enforcement of customs laws, and failure to comply with those requisites is as
condemnable as failure to pay customs fees.

The provision is Part 4 of Title VI, Section 2505, of the TCC which enumerates the administrative
penalties in the form of surcharges, fines and forfeitures imposed by law on imported dutiable
goods. It does not define a crime. It merely provides, inter alia, for the administrative remedies
which can be resorted to by the Bureau of Customs when seizing the dutiable articles found in
the baggage of any person arriving in the Philippines which is not included in the accomplished
baggage declaration submitted to the customs authorities, and the administrative penalties
that such person must pay for the release of such goods if not imported contrary to law.

Section 3601 of the TCC provides:

Sec. 3601. Unlawful Importation. Any person who shall fraudulently import or
bring into the Philippines, or assist in so doing, any article, contrary to law, or
shall receive, conceal, buy, sell, or in any manner facilitate the transportation,
concealment, or sale of such article after importation, knowing the same to have
been imported contrary to law, shall be guilty of smuggling.

The last paragraph of said provision reads:

When, upon trial for violation of this section, the defendant is shown to have had
possession of the article in question, possession shall be deemed sufficient
evidence to authorize conviction unless the defendant shall explain the
possession to the satisfaction of the court: Provided, however, That payment of
the tax due after apprehension shall not constitute a valid defense in any
prosecution under this section.

Thus, in contrast to Section 2505, Section 3601 of the TCC is a penal provision. It defines the
crime of smuggling and provides compound penalties of graduated fine and imprisonment
based on the appraised values of the imported articles to be determined in the manner
provided in the TCC. There is no conflict between Section 2505 and Section 3601. In point of
fact, the two sections and Section 3602 complement each other.

Smuggling is committed by any person who: (1) fraudulently imports or brings into the
Philippines any article contrary to law; (2) assists in so doing any article contrary to law; or (3)
receives, conceals, buys, sells or in any manner facilitate the transportation, concealment or
sale of such goods after importation, knowing the same to have been imported contrary to law.

The crime of unlawful importation is complete, in the absence of a bona fide intent to make
entry and pay duties when the prohibited article enters Philippine territory. Importation is
complete when the taxable, dutiable commodity is brought within the limits of the port of
entry. Entry through a customs house is not the essence of the act.

Section 3602 of the TCC, on the other hand, enumerates the various fraudulent practices
against customs revenue, such as the entry of imported or exported articles by means of any
false or fraudulent invoice, statement or practice; the entry of goods at less than the true
weight or measure; or the filing of any false or fraudulent entry for the payment of drawback or
refund of duties.

The term entry in Customs law has a triple meaning. It means (1) the documents filed at the
Customs house; (2) the submission and acceptance of the documents; and (3) the procedure of
passing goods through the Customs house. Customs declaration forms or customs entry forms
required to be accomplished by passengers of incoming vessels or passenger planes are
envisaged in the section.

The bare fact that, under the second paragraph of the Information, petitioner is alleged to have
imported the jewellery into the country by, inter alia, not declaring it in the customs
declaration form, it cannot thereby be concluded that she was being charged of a crime under
Section 2505 of the TCC. The acts alleged therein are descriptive of the fraudulent manner
petitioner imported her jewelleries into the country. Petitioner’s intentional concealment or
nondisclosure that she had such jewellery items in the leatherette bags constituted fraud under
Sections 3601 and 3602 of the TCC, aimed at depriving the government of customs revenue.
 EL GRECO SHIP MANNING AND MANAGEMENT CORPORATION vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

G.R. No. 177188 December 4, 2008

Facts:

While the vessel M/V Criston was docked at Port of Tabaco, Albay, a Warrant and Seizure and Detention
was issued upon directive of then Commissioner of Bureau of Customs for the 35,000 bags of imported
rice it carried from the Port of Manila without the necessary clearance from the Philippine Coast Guard.

A subsequent Warrant of Seizure and Detention was then issued including the vessel. The rice was
released to after the consignees filed a bond.

While M/V Criston was berthing at the Port of Tabaco, the Province was hit by typhoon. The vessel was
allowed to have another anchorage area for temporary shelter, however, after the typhoon the vessel
failed to return to the Port of Tabaco.

The Bureau of Customs, Philippine Coast Guard and Philippine Air force looked for the missing vessel,
later was found in the waters of Bataan sporting the name of M/V Neptune Breeze. For failure of
Neptune Breeze to present proper clearance, another Warrant of Seizure and Detention was issued
against it. Also, ordering the forfeiture of the M/V Criston, also known as M/V Neptune Breeze, and its
cargo, for violating Section 2530 (a), (f) and (k) of the Tariff and Customs Code.

El Greco, an authorized local agent of the registered owner of M/V Neptune Breeze, Atlantic Pacific
Corporation, filed a Motion for Intervention and Motion to Quash the warrant. El Greco claimed that
M/V Neptune Breeze was a foreign registered vessel owned by Atlantic Pacific, and different from M/V
Criston. The Manila District Collector issued an order quashing the Warrant and release of the vessel for
lack of probable cause that the vessel was the same one known as M/V Criston. However, upon
automatic review of BOC Commissioner the prior decision was reversed and found that M/V Neptune
Breeze and M/V Criston were one and the same, as shown in the document retrieved by the elements of
the Philippine Coast Guard from M/V Criston during search conducted on board that the name of the
vessel MV "NEPTUNE BREEZE," the name of the master of the vessel a certain YUSHAWU AWUDU, etc.
These facts were corroborated by the footage of ABS-CBN taken on board the vessel when the same was
subjected to search. The laboratory report submitted by the Philippine National Police (PNP)also
showed that the serial numbers of the engines and the generators of both M/V Criston and M/V
Neptune Breeze were one and the same.

Issues:

1. Whether or not M/V Criston and M/V Neptune Breeze are one and the same vessel;

2. Whether or not the forfeiture is valid

RULING:
1. Yes. The crime laboratory report of the PNP shows that the serial numbers of the engines and
generators of the two vessels are identical. El Greco failed to rebut this piece of evidence that decisively
identified M/V Neptune Breeze as the same as M/V Criston. We take judicial notice that along with gross
tonnage, net tonnage, length and breadth of the vessel, the serial numbers of its engine and generator
are the necessary information identifying a vessel. In much the same way, the identity of a land motor
vehicle is established by its unique motor and chassis numbers.

2. Yes. The pertinent provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code read:

SEC. 2530. Property Subject to Forfeiture Under Tariff and Customs Law. Any vehicle, vessel or
aircraft, cargo, articles and other objects shall, under the following conditions, be subject to
forfeiture:

a. Any vehicle, vessel or aircraft, including cargo, which shall be used unlawfully in the
importation or exportation of articles or in conveying and/or transporting contraband or
smuggled articles in commercial quantities into or from any Philippine port or place. The mere
carrying or holding on board of contraband or smuggled articles in commercial quantities shall
subject such vessel, vehicle, aircraft or any other craft to forfeiture; Provided, That the vessel, or
aircraft or any other craft is not used as duly authorized common carrier and as such a carrier it
is not chartered or leased;

xxxx

f. Any article, the importation or exportation of which is effected or attempted contrary to law,
or any article of prohibited importation or exportation, and all other articles which, in the
opinion of the Collector, have been used, are or were intended to be used as instruments in the
importation or exportation of the former;

xxxx

k. Any conveyance actually being used for the transport of articles subject to forfeiture under the
tariff and customs laws, with its equipage or trappings, and any vehicle similarly used, together
with its equipage and appurtenances including the beast, steam or other motive power drawing
or propelling the same. The mere conveyance of contraband or smuggled articles by such beast
or vehicle shall be sufficient cause for the outright seizure and confiscation of such beast or
vehicle, but the forfeiture shall not be effected if it is established that the owner of the means of
conveyance used as aforesaid, is engaged as common carrier and not chartered or leased, or his
agent in charge thereof at the time has no knowledge of the unlawful act.

The penalty of forfeiture is imposed on any vessel engaged in smuggling, provided that the following
conditions are present:
 (1) The vessel is used unlawfully in the importation or exportation of articles into or from the
Philippines;

(2) The articles are imported to or exported from any Philippine port or place, except a port of
entry; or

(3) If the vessel has a capacity of less than 30 tons and is used in the importation of articles into
any Philippine port or place other than a port of the Sulu Sea, where importation in such vessel
may be authorized by the Commissioner, with the approval of the department head."

There is no question that the vessel was carrying 35,000 bags of imported rice without the necessary
papers showing that they were entered lawfully through a Philippine port after the payment of
appropriate taxes and duties thereon. This gives rise to the presumption that such importation was
illegal. Consequently, the rice subject of the importation, as well as the vessel M/V Neptune Breeze used
in importation are subject to forfeiture.

We cannot give credence to the argument of El Greco that the Order dated 11 March 2002 of the Manila
District Collector, finding no probable cause that M/V Neptune Breeze is the same as M/V Criston, has
already become final and executory, thus, irreversible, pursuant to Section 2313 of the Tariff and
Customs Code. According to said provision:

SEC. 2313. Review of Commissioner. The person aggrieved by the decision or action of the
Collector in any matter presented upon protest or by his action in any case of seizure may, within
fifteen (15) days after notification in writing by the Collector of his action or decision, file a
written notice to the Collector with a copy furnished to the Commissioner of his intention to
appeal the action or decision of the Collector to the Commissioner. Thereupon the Collector shall
forthwith transmit all the records of the proceedings to the Commissioner, who shall approve,
modify or reverse the action or decision of the Collector and take such steps and make such
orders as may be necessary to give effect to his decision: Provided, That when an appeal is filed
beyond the period herein prescribed, the same shall be deemed dismissed.

If in any seizure proceedings, the Collector renders a decision adverse to the Government, such
decision shall be automatically reviewed by the Commissioner and the records of the case
elevated within five (5) days from the promulgation of the decision of the Collector. The
Commissioner shall render a decision on the automatic appeal within thirty (30) days from
receipts of the records of the case. If the Collectors decision is reversed by the Commissioner, the
decision of the Commissioner shall be final and executory. However, if the Collectors decision is
affirmed, or if within thirty (30) days from receipt of the record of the case by the
Commissioner no decision is rendered or the decision involves imported articles whose
published value is five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) or more, such decision shall be deemed
automatically appealed to the Secretary of Finance and the records of the proceedings shall be
elevated within five (5) days from the promulgation of the decision of the Commissioner or of the
Collector under appeal, as the case may be: Provided, further, That if the decision of the
Commissioner or of the Collector under appeal as the case may be, is affirmed by the Secretary
 of Finance or if within thirty (30) days from receipt of the records of the proceedings by the
Secretary of Finance, no decision is rendered, the decision of the Secretary of Finance, or of the
Commissioner, or of the Collector under appeal, as the case may be, shall become final and
executory.

In any seizure proceeding, the release of imported articles shall not be allowed unless and until a
decision of the Collector has been confirmed in writing by the Commissioner of Customs.

There is nothing in Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code to support the position of El Greco. As
the CTA en banc explained, in case the BOC Commissioner fails to decide on the automatic appeal of the
Collectors Decision within 30 days from receipt of the records thereof, the case shall again be deemed
automatically appealed to the Secretary of Finance. Also working against El Greco is the fact that
jurisdiction over M/V Neptune Breeze, otherwise known as M/V Criston, was first acquired by the
Legaspi District Collector; thus, the Manila District Collector cannot validly acquire jurisdiction over the
same vessel. Judgment rendered without jurisdiction is null and void, and void judgment cannot be the
source of any right whatsoever.