Mapublic of Yhe Philippines Court of Tax Appeals Ns Luz M. Gigare Oe vs. Cet A. Case No, et al.

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO, 1047 — iF Later, in the office of the patrol division of the Collector of Customs of Jolo, petitioner, fearing detention, denied ownership of the 519 cartons of “Chesterfield” cigarettes. However, in a communication dated May 15, 1957, she claimed ownership over the same.

At the time the cigarettes in question were seized, petitioner was a transient in Jolo. She was neither an agent nor an importer in either Jolo or Manila.

After a formal hearing, the Colleetor of Customs of Jolo ordered the forfeiture of the Cigarettes in question. Petitioner appealed to the Count. esioner of Customs who affirmed the decision of the Collector of Customs of Jolo.

The Commissioner based his decree of forfeiture on paragraphs (f) and (m1) of Section 1363 of the Revised Administrative Code, _ The evidence and records show that petitioner rebeived the notice and a copy cof the decision, Gated March 24, 1961, of the Commissioner of Customs on March 27, 1961. On April 2+, 1961, she filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. She received the order of denial on April 28, 1961. On April 29, 1961, she posted at the Manila Post Office, by registered and special delivery wail and addressed to this Court, the instant petition for review which this Court re- ceived on May 3, 1961.

. 87 a DBCISION « ok CTA CASE NO, 10%7 =~ 3 The main issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the cigarettes in question are subjeet to forfeiture.

Respondent, in his memorandum, suggests that the present petition for review was filed beyond the thirty-day period prescribed in Section 11 of Republic Act No. 1125. A careful serutiny of the evidence and records of this case shows that petitioner seasonably filed her petition for review, having consumed only twenty-nine days of the thirty days allowed by law. From March 27, 1961 when petitioner received the decision of respondent to April 24, 1961 when she filed her motion for reconsideration, 28 days have elapsed. It took her only one day from April 28, 1961, the date when she received the denial of her motion for reconsideration, to perfect her appeal by mail- ing (registered and speeial delivery mail) the petition for review on April 29, 1961. The date of mailing, not the date of actual receipt in this Court, is considered the date the instant appeal was instituted (Seetion 1, Rule 27, Rules of Court, Henning vs. Western Equipment et al., 62 Phil. 886). | We come now to the main issue, Paragraphs (f) and (m1) of Seetion 1363 of the Revised Administrative Code, upon which the » gg wr

DECISION ~

cta case Ro. 1 ~ k ow forfeiture of the cicerettes at bar is being juste ified, provide as follows:

"BEC. 1363. Fpoverty aubiect to easels, cargo, nerchand)sc, and otner objects and things shall, under the conditions hereinbelow specificd, be subject to forrelturet x x z x x “(f) Amy merehandise of proni- bited importetion cr expertation, the importation or expertation of whieh is offectsd cr attempted caon- trary res dew, and all other merchan- dise which, in the opinton of the coliector, have been used, ere or were ‘intended te be used as instrne- ment in the importation or export- ation of the former.

x x x x x

. °(m) Any merchandise the importotion or exportation of whieh is effected or ettempted in any of the ways or under any of the conditions hereinbelow @erceribed, “4, "oon impertetion or ex- portation, either con- summate or frustrete, without going through a anetomniov se.

It is the theory of petitioner that inas- much es the cigarettes in question were purchased by her tn the (open market of Jolo and there being no proof, otner than the “blue seals! ané the cigarette wrappers, that the cigarettes cane from outside the Philippines, there could not have been an importation or attempt thereof in order to subjeet the same to forfeiture under the provisions is " §9 ft

DECISION «

CTA CASE NO, 1047 - 5 = of paragraphs (f) and (m1) of Section 1363 of the Revised Adninistrative Code. In other words, petitioner maintains that the cigarettes were not ‘imported into the Philippines, henee, they are not subject to forfeiture.

Were the cigarettes in qu@stion illegally imported inte the Philippines? de are of the opinion that the Comaissioner of Customs should be sustained in his finding that the eigarettes in question were imported illegally. The absence of Philippine internal revenue strip stamps on eicarettes indicates that they are either san- factured alaniestinaly within the Philippines or imported illegally into the country, In * | ease at bar, concomitant circumstances militate against the clandestine wenufscture within the Philippines of the cigarettes. The affixture of | blue seals on the packs of cigarettes, the wrappers, the purchase of the cigarettes in the open market of Jolo, a place where American and other foreign- made cigarettes are, of common knowledge, fre- quently smuggled from Borneo (l4m Bak vs. Collect- or of Customs, BTA Case No, 180, August 28, 195%), and the failure of petitioner to show that the cigarettes in question were locally manufactured rule out the possibility that the cigarettes in question were manufactured in the Philippines.

» 90 hoa

DECISION -

CeTeA. CASS NO. 1947 ~ 6 « Consequently, we ere vonstralnued to conclude that these cigarettes were foreign (American) made. They ere mercisidise of pronibited lupor bation, tue > luporteatios of which was ceatrary te lew, and should be forfeited under section 1363 (f£) of the Hevleecd adwinistrative Vode.

The "Diwe seal” cigarettes at bar having been lilegally Lrougut into the country, they are iLkaw! bject to forfeiture wnder Section 1363 (itienl) « vised . listrative Joce for the the; re laperted late the country without golng through a customhouse. Jur don- clusion us/ S@ee lars on petitioner, consider- ing thal she is being deprived of her property ale though she is merely the buyer, and nol tue dilegal luporter, of the cigarettes. ‘Aevenue laws are of a harsher neture than any others, and necessarily so; for, the devices of Angenious vara render i4t indispensable for the legisiature to nee t their 4.]icit practices with severer pen-~ altiea"” (United States vs. the 38 “Islas Fili- pinas", 28 Phil, 291, 296). | ( The fact that petitioner is merely a buyer of the cigarettes in the open aarket of Jolo does not render the cigarettes famune frou the penalty of forfeiture. This is so because forfeiture

DECISION

CTA CASE NO, 1047 o Ve proceedings are instituted against the res (cig- arettes) (Origet vs. U. 5., 125 U.S. 240, 31 Iued 733 Coffey vs. United States, 116 U. 8. 836, 29 lued 68%, 627; The Paluyra, Escurra, Master, 12 Wheaton 1, 6 Lued 531, 537) and, by express provision ef Section 136% of the Revised Administrative Code, the forfeiture shell also ecour while the merehandise is im the hands or subject to the control of some person who shall receive, conceal, buy, sell, or trameport the same with knowledge that the merchandise was imported contrary to law. \ Petitioner cannot but be cherged with the knowledge that the cigarettes in question were imported contrary to lew, for if 1t were otherwise, why were these cigarettes cone cealed on board the vessel F'/S “Beis”? Why dsa she deny ownership over said cigarettes? For what plausible reason was she afraid of deten- tion? What impelled her to believe that she would be deteined by the customs authorities? To up- hold the claim of petitioner and forggo the for~ feiture would be giving o chance to sccessories after the fact of smugglers of foreign cigarettes to ply their trade with impunity and with the sanction of the courts. what the executive de- partment could not then curb, that is, rampant smuggling of foreign cigarettes, the courts should re oo” |

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO, 1047.

~ Bea

not tolerate (Republie of the Fhilippines vs. Goce, 50 0. G. 1662, 1667).

IX VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATION, the decision of the Commissioner of Customs appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner.

80 ORDERED, Manila, Philippines, March 4, 1963.

Pk

esc - ,

Presiding Judge

WE CONCUR:

ssociate Judge a Rie oar

Associate Judge