\—> Akpublic of the Philippin}:? Court of Fax Appeals Quezon Gity -— Virginia De Leqn-Tongson vs. Celeas Case Ho. 1609 Ths Commiss Tower of Customs

DECISION

This is an appeal from the decision of the Cos- missioner of Customs wnten affirmed that of the Col- lector of Customs of the Manila International aire port decreeing the selzgure and forfeiture of thirty- six (36) pieces of jewelry end five hundred twenty- two (522) pieces of diamonds for violation of Sea- tions 2505 and 2530 (m-2 and §$) of the Tariff and Customs Code. | Om June 8, 1963, petitioner arrived at the Mani-~ la International Airport (MIA) aboard » Philippine dir Liges plane from Hongkong. Upon arrival, she was reqtisred to f111 up a “Baggage Declaration fa- try” form wherein she declared that she had with her, two (2) bags or valises and deseribed the articten | entered as “personal”, without indi¢ating their cost or Value, (/. 1/7, Customs rec.: After the ‘two Customs fxaminer, petitioner was approached ‘oy se- correo de dunman, Customs ceret Service Agent, who esked her if she was Carrylag any jiweley OF "BA.

veeisiol’ - CTa CASE NO, 1609 Valuable articles with her anc she replied in the negative. ‘thereupon, petitioner was invited to the ladies' rooms for physical search. Inside the ladies* room she admitted thet she had in her pos- session pieces of jewelry, and she took out from a pocket of her panty two (2) small cloth bags secured with safety-pins. he two small cloth bags were found to contain thirty-six (36) pleces of jewelry and five hundred twenty-two (522) pleces of diamonds. In View of the cireumstences ander which the erticles of jowelry were imported and entered, the Collector of Customs of the MIA instituted the corresponding selzure proceetines for violation of Seetions 2505 ana 2530 (m-2 and 5) of the Tariff and Customs Code (MIA S.I. Wo. 472). After hearing, the Collector of Customs, on September 12, 1963, deereed the forfei- ture of the articles in favor of the Government. iiot satisfied with the decision, petitioner appealed to respondent who, on Cetober 1%, 1964, affirmed the de~- Cision of the Collector of Customs. lence, the pre- sent appeal.

In the meantiae, the Government filed a eriminel complaint against petitioner in the Court ¢ First | Instance of Pasay City, docketed as Criminal Case io. 610l-P, for attempting to evade the payment of lawful 165

RECISION ~

CTA CASE NO. 1609 duties and taxes on the articles in question, penal- “ised by Section 3602 of the Tariff and Customs Code. Om April 26, 1969, the court found petitioner not gaiity of the charge and dismissed the complaint. (See pp. 35-49, CTA ree.)

suring the hearing of this case on May 13, 1969, the parties agreed to subsit the case on the besis of the pleadings and customs records, without further meaorandum, the forfeiture of the articles in question was | ordered by virtue of Sections 2905 and 2530 (m2 and! 5) of the fariff and Custous Code.

(seweiry and pretious stones carried by incowing passengers are not “baggage” within the conceptual éefinition of that tera. However, American jurispru- deuce categorises these articles as baggage under the American customs laws, (U.5. Vv. Gne Pearl Heek- lace, et al., 105 Fed 357; U.S. V. Une Pearl Neck- lace, et al., 11) Fed. 164; One Pearl Chain v. U.d., 123 FPed., 3713 U.S. Vv. 218) Carats Loose Wweralds, 153 Fed. 643.) And sinee our Tariff and Customs Code is an adaptation from American customs lews, the - interpretative jurisprudence obtaining in the United States on jewelry end precious stones as baggage is persuasive in our jurisdiction. Consequently, we ~“‘ 166

DECIEIGN «

take it that jewelry ocd previous stones carried by persons arriving in the vhilipplnes are baggage which should be declored as enjoined by Section | 2505 ef the Tariff aod Customs code. )

_ Concededly, the jewelry and diamond stonas in question vere not ineludeéd in the Baggage Declera- tion © fatry asde end signed by petitioner. The aon- inclusion or omission to declere was compounded by the Genial of petitioner, upon inquiry frosw Custous Secret Gervice Ageat Socorro de Guzuan, that she was Carrying jewelry upon her arrival at tne Airport. This denial was maintained untli she yielded the two bundles of jewelry en¢ diawond stones in the ladies’ yoou where she was invited for a physical search, These bundles were extracteo by her from an impro- Viged pocket of her panty. <All these circumstances ghuntantiy Gemonstrate the fraud attending petitioner's failure to mention or deelere seic dutiable articles, for which their seigure is justified under Section 2505 of the Tariff and Customs Code.

The second ceuse of forfeiture is, in substance, the failure of petitioner te wention the jewelry and diamond stones to a evetoms official. Bec. 2530 (m2) Tariff and Customs Gode,7 (im this connection, it appeers that petitioner not only chese to remain 167

DaCTVICd «

CTs Cisse NO. 1669 Silent regarding the existence in her person of the articles in question, but positively denied bringing them when she was asked by the Customs Seeret Service agent. The fact that petitioner sabsequently dis- Closed and yielded thee to the Customs Secret Gervice Agent and the Supervising Appraiser in the ledies' room where she was invited for »« physiesl search is not a proper and geasonable declaration or mention of the jewelry and diamond stones to customs officials. The inevitability of the physical seareh and their consequent finding in the person of petitioner left her no other alternative than to admit their existence aad te surrender them to the customs authorities. fo nod in agreement to the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that tue disclosure of the articles in the ladies' room after the initial denial of their existence by petitioner is s proper ani seasonable declaration or mention te the custome officials would embolden swagglers and the Jike minded poople to brazenly ceny carrying undeclared dutiable articles antil finally cornered inte adm tting sugh fact. Con- sequently, we find that the jewelry and diameni stones in question are subject to forfeiture under Section 2530 (m2) of the Tariff and Customs Cote. )/ | Pinally, the forfetture of the jewelry and diamond 168

DECISION“ «

OTA CASE Ae 1609

& stones is being justified for anving been imported through any other fraudulent device by means of whieh such artiele was entered torough a oastenhouse to the prejudice of the dovernment. (See. 2530 (m5) Tariff and Customs Code.) (tne bundles containing the articles — in question were adulttedly carried in a pocket im. provised in petitioner's panty at the ties they were yielded to the customs authorities. The improvised pocket of petitioner's panty is undoubtedly e« fraudu- lent device by seens of waich the jewelry and dianond stones were entered tnrough the enstomhouse to the prejudice of the Uovernment, ani, coupled with her denial of the existence of such artieles when ques = tioned for the first time, justifies forfeiture of the articles under the provisions of Section 2530 (a=5) of the Teriff ané Customs Cote.) / ‘é fact thet petitioner was secuitted in the eriminal cease fileo against her in connection with the iaportation of seid articles Gees not affect the liability of saie articles for forfeitare.

SiBAGe CaS, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs against petitioner.

60 ORDSALD, Quezon City, June 30, 1969.

ROMAN NM. GALT frvesiding Judge I coneurs hw. FD RAMON L. AVAuCuda ite TBO