Trully Natural Food Corp. v. Department of Finance

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 1077. June 8, 2015.] (C.T.A. Case No. 8353) TRULLY NATURAL FOOD CORP., represented by its Executive Vice President/General Manager, RODOLFO C. SOBONG , petitioner , vs. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE , respondent . RESOLUTION COTANGCO-MANALASTAS , J p : For resolution is petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 1 filed through registered mail on October 9, 2014 and received by this Court on October 16, 2014 with respondent's Comment (to the Motion for Reconsideration dated October 8, 2014) 2 filed through registered mail on February 12, 2015 and received by this Court on February 24, 2015. Petitioner moves for the reconsideration of this Court's Decision 3 dated September 8, 2014, which dismissed the instant petition for review for lack of merit. Petitioner reiterates its argument that the subject imported plastic rolls are used solely and exclusively for the packaging of petitioner's dried mangoes to be sent abroad. The imported plastic rolls with dried mangoes inside are then re-exported within a period of six (6) months from importation. Clearly, these subject imported plastic rolls are conditionally-free importations under Section 105 (m) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP). Concerning petitioner's alleged failure to comply with Customs Administrative Order (CAO) No. 7-72, as amended, particularly the submission of the Affidavit of the Importer, petitioner argues that the Court must give weight and consideration to petitioner's good faith in complying with the provisions of Section 105 (m) of the TCCP. This is clearly demonstrable when petitioner secured the importation with a 150% re-export bond to ensure payment of the duties and taxes and any other damage that may be incurred by reason of the said importations. If not for the Collector of Customs Atty. Elvira Cruz's negligence in failing to advise petitioner of the requirements of CAO No. 7-72, this inadvertence could not have arisen. Equally important, the administrative order being adduced by the Office of the Solicitor General is in the nature of an internal regulation which petitioner was not aware of. At the very least, it was not notified of the requirements set therein, to its prejudice. CAIHTE In her comment, respondent counter-argues, among others, that as an importer, petitioner is presumed to know all the rules and regulations of the Bureau of Customs with regard to the requirements needed before its shipments may be entered duty free, particularly CAO No. 11-74. We find no merit in the motion for reconsideration. A perusal of petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration clearly reveals that the grounds relied upon are but a mere rehash or reiteration of the arguments raised before the Court in Division and the Court En Banc . Since the matters raised in the instant motion had already been thoroughly discussed and passed upon in the assailed Decision and no new issues or matters have been raised therein, this Court will no longer address the same. As to petitioner's contention that it was not informed of CAO No. 7-72, We find the same devoid of merit. Administrative regulations enacted by administrative agencies to implement and interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce have the force of law and are entitled to respect. Such rules and regulations partake of the nature of a statute and are just as binding as if they have been written in the statute itself. 4 Section 105 (m) of the TCCP clearly provides that the articles shall be exempt from the payment of import duties upon compliance with the formalities prescribed in, or with, the regulations which shall be promulgated by the Commissioner of Customs with the approval of the Secretary of Finance . In relation thereto, paragraph I (M) of CAO No. 7-72, 5 as amended by CAO No. 11-74, provides for such formalities to be complied with. Petitioner cannot escape compliance with the formalities prescribed therein on the basis that it was not informed of these requirements as ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. 6 WHEREFORE , premises considered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. DETACa (SGD.) AMELIA R. COTANGCO-MANALASTAS Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Juanito C. Castaeda, Jr., Lovell R. Bautista, Erlinda P. Uy, Caesar A. Casanova, Esperanza R. Fabon-Victorino, Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla and Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1. Rollo , pp. 221-226. 2. Rollo , pp. 245-249. 3. Rollo , pp. 200-215. 4. Abakada Guro Party List vs. Purisima , G.R. No. 166715, August 14, 2008. 5. Regulations Implementing Section 105 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, as Amended by Presidential Decree No. 34 Dated October 27, 1972. 6. Article 3, New Civil Code.