The Administrative Court dismissed
the appeal filed by Distribuidora Nacional de Açúcar, Lda. (DNA), upholding the
reporting judge's decision, which had summarily dismissed the appeal due to
failure to identify the counter-interested party and the absence of a request
for service of process.
Case
context:
DNA appealed against the ruling
that ruled in favor of Companhia do Sena, S.A., which had requested the
suspension of an administrative act by the Director-General of the IPI (Tax on
Industrial Property). In the original proceedings, DNA was identified as the
counter-interested party. In its appeal, it did not identify Companhia do Sena
as the appellee or request its service of process, contrary to legal
requirements.
According to the Court's understanding,
even in a jurisdictional appeal, the rules for identifying the parties involved
must be observed, as per Article 10 of the Civil Code. 135 of the LPPAC, under
penalty of nullity. In other words, "the party that may be directly harmed
by the reversal of the decision cannot be excluded. The omission of the
opposing party compromises the validity of the appeal."
The Court also dismissed DNA's
argument that the procedural stage had already stabilized the parties. It
reiterated that, regardless of the procedural stage, the correct identification
of the parties is an essential formal requirement to ensure adversarial
proceedings and due process.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the
case, granting the IPI's decision on the matter.
