Court of Tax Appeals
0CTA Case No. 2355
I
,·
•
- ..
~
'. '
lt.EPUnf.IC OV T RF. :nnLTPPI NEa
COURT OF T AX .-. PPEAUJ
QU.E:t,o . cnr
"~. .. ,·
----·
/ BENJAMI N A. MALABRIGOr
Petitione :.: ,.
- .versl!s -
C.T . A. CASE NO. 2355
CTI NG COMMISSIONER OF
CUSTOMS,
Responde t .
X -
-
-
~ -
.X
D E C I S I 0
Peti t i o er seeks to vac ate respondent
Commis s ioner of Customs 8 .dec i sion i n Cus t oms
Case No. 1000 dated Novembe r 17, 1970, relative
to the f orfeiture of two (2) .armalite rifles ,
rounds of ammunition and conta i ning baffles
allegedly found violative of the Customs l aw.
The pertinent provis i ons of t he Tar i ff and
Customs Code a re as f ollows:
"Section 102.
Prohibited Imp_~
a t i on§.- . The i mportati on
into t he
Philippines of t he f ollowing ar ticles
i s prohibi t ed :
a .
Dynamite , gunpowder , ammunitions
and other explosives , f irearms ,
and
we:~.E..<?n s of war, an~ar ts
j:h £.~~e o f, except when au t hor i zed
by law .
XXX XXX
xxx.
11
"Sec t ion 2530 .
Proper ty §ubject
o For fei t ure Under Tariff and C us~
~ ·
. Any vehicle , vessel or aircraft,
cargo , a r t ie e and othe
obj ects shall,
under t he f ollowing conditi ons be sub-
. j ec t to f or f eiture :
16
..
, .
..
i
I I.
,.
l.
-
J
,,
J.
DEC ISION -
CTA CASE NO . 2355
XXX
( t ) .
-
2 -
' XXX
XXX
Any ar tic l e the importat i on
or exportation of which i s
effected or attempted contr ary
to l aw 1 or ~!.l.!..t~ .cl~___<?l_Ef.£- . ,
hibited
i mpq_rt ?l tio .:·~ or export-
a t ion , and all other articles
which , i n the opin i on of t he
Col l ector, have been used 6 are
or we r e entered to be used as
i n st r u m~n t s i n t.h_g__imE,_or tafiOn
or. expor tat iot of t he forme r ;
X}{ X
XXX XXX
(m) . Any ar t icl e sought to be im-
por ted or expor ted :
XXX
( 3
XXX XXX
On the str enth of a f alse
'declaration or affidav i t
exc8uted by the owner,
i mporte r , expor te r or con-
signee c oncernin<;t t he im-
portation of such article;
XXX XXX
(5) Through any other practice
'or dev i ce contrary t o l aw
by means of which such
~
artic l es was ente r ed t hrough
a cus t omhou se to t he pre-
judice of the government ."
(Under scoring supplied.) .
The records disclose that ,
1) some t ime on
. August 26 , 196 9 three (3 ) ~ie ce s of unaccompanied
baggage f r om Sa i gon , Vietnam on board t he Pan
American Airways plane arrived at t he Manila Inter-
ational Airport , so declar~d in t he cover i ng Air-
way b i ll ,
'SAID TO CONTAIN:
USED PERSONA L EFFEC'rS
11
162
•
.·
!
. '
•
DECISI ON -
CTA CASE NO. 2355
.:.. 3 -
slipped by and consign~d to Benjami n A. Malabrigo
•
the petitioner, whose ar r ival was on August 27 ,
196 9;
2) .on Septembe r 2 1 196 9 a representative ·-
•
of t he brokerage of the 67th Air bocne For war ders
c laimed the cargo from the Pacific As soc iat es
Corpor a t i on, a c us toms bonded warehouse, f or rc-
lease fr om Customs c ustody;
3) ? POD Customs
inspection and examina t i on , each of t he two (2)
"Sansui" baffles yielded a d i smantled Armali t e
r i f l e , Colt AR- l5 1 with correspondi g maga zines
conta i ning 15 rounds of ammunition and t he one
sui tcase, i t ems of c lothing, new and· used;
4) t he
Collec tor of Customs , Manila I nternationa l Ai rpor t ,
institut ed seizure proceedings against the military
hardware and containers thereof, which impor t ation
.·
. was effec ted on the strength of a "false declar ation"
a d thr ough f r audul ent device pursu ant to Sectidn
2530 m -3 and - 5 of t he Tariff and Cus't oms Code,
.
.
~~ra
: and accord i ngly decr e (;;d t he forfe itu r e in
f avor of t he governij\cnt on Apri l 2 ' · 1970 (Seizure
Identifica t ion No. 959) ;_ 5) .on appe al by
he
claimant petitioner, the forfeiture orde r was
affirmed by t he respondent Commiss ione r of Customs
e inforced by Section 102(a) in relation to Section
25 30 (f ) , both of the Ta r iff and Customs Code,
§.~!.L?.f.E.,
.
.
163
,
•
I '
: 1
.. ~~i
~ • • --;;--r;::r ~
t
I
/
•
DECIS ION -
CTA CASE NOe 2355
..:.. 4
as add itional gr ound theref or (Cus t oms Case No. 1000 •
w
dat ed November 17, 1970) i. and 6) .a f urther reconsi der -
ation ~r oved t o no avai l as t he same was denied . in
;
a resoluti on dated Novembe r 3 1 1971 of t he r espondent.
Hence , this petition.
Petiti one r assails the legality of the dec r ee·
of forfeiture and avers the conf iscated ar ticles
were not "falsely declared" in contemplation of
Sec tion 2530 (m
. ~ ' s upra, as they are indeed "used
~
personal e f fects"; and fur t her takes issue t hat the
rifles c an no longer be conside r ed "prohibited i m-
por t ation unde r Section 102 (a ) ~ supr ! , after hav i ng
applied f or a license therefor as affirmed by the
Coll ector of Customs that the same "ceased to become
an article of pr ohibited importat ion as def i ned in
Sect i on 102 (a) of Republ ic Ac t No . 1937 " and which
respondent Commi ssioner of Custom;.:; ought i nf u se
.~
cognizance.
The prec ise iss ue is nothing more t hat whether
or riot the forfei ture of t he su b je ~t cargo i s in
accord with l aw.
We do not i n t he case at bar find difficulty
i n disentangling the apparent quibble posed by the
petitioner .
The nat ure and character of t he arti;lcs
har dly seem to be a gripping quest ion,
The pelluci-
dity of the language of Section 102 (a ) .insofar as
' .
•
--I
l
•
DECISION -
CTA CASE NO . 2355 ~ 5 - i t relates to "firearm~ and we apons of war and • parts t hereof", deemed prohibited • xcept when authorized by law" requires no f urther exegesis • • The controverted mili t ary rifles of the Vie tnam War vintage sough- to be e n tered~ the necessary license or author i ty ar e obvious_y of the category• The requisite "aut ori zed by law" cannot be naively v i ewed for a mere ~u e asy antic ipa t ion bu t r ather of defir~e n es s and fina]ty upon which petitione~'s right t o t he importation must be exers i sed or lost. The pendency of the application for legal possession t he r eof fu rnishes no satisfacti on of ult'mate solution. As a factly mat t e r , "up to this time, no license has yet been rece'ved from t he Philippine Constabulary authorizing the i mpor tation or pos session of the fi r earms (Respondent ' s brief p. 5 )~ and nei the r is i t for thcoming as a consequence of a Presidential ban.
We are not to confuse the circu m~ tances as they might be but as they actua ly were at the t ime of entry nor be misled on what p e ti~ i o n e r expects for himself i n t he way of entitlement but what he i s entitled to expec t f om an importation effected or attempted contr ary to law.
Respondent's view that the subject weapons, aside f rom the Collector' s findings, were of e~t1al 165 • ~_, .
I
I
DECIS ION -
CTA CASE NO . 2355 - 6 cer ta i nty "proh ibited lmpor t ation" as def i ned in Sec t ion 102 (a)'· ~1p r~ , and thus j ustify t heir f or- fe iture unde r Section 2530 ( f )~ supra, is fully . shared by U Se ;, Pe t itioner'• n i bble in fault ing respondent ' s author i t y i n super seding the Collector's ru ing coul d be a ind of an unwarr anted persiflage . Sec t ion 2313 of the Tar iff and Customs Code squares t hat star vel i ng agi tation , thus, the Commissioner of Customs "shall approve, modify or rever se the .· acti on or decis ion of t he Coll ec t or and take s uch steps and make s uch orde r s as may be necessa r y t o give effec t t o hi s dec ision. " And ce r t ainly, "the appellate power of t he Commiss ioner of Ctistoms t o r eview sei zure and prot est c ases is not limited t o a review of t he i s s ues r a i sed on appeal . He may af firm , mod i f y or r everse t he decis ion of the Collec- tor (Section 2313) .o other q es t ions provided that his findings a d concl usions a e, as ih t he case at bar, s upported by ev i dence.
It is of no consequence whatsoever what were the original g~ounds of t he se izure and forfeiture i f, in point of i~ct, th0 goods ar e by law subjec t to forfeiture (Wood v. u.s. 16 Pet . (US) 34 2, 10 L. Ed . 987) •. " Vierneza v. The Commis s ione of Cus toms, G.R. L-24 388 , July 30 , 1968.
We hesitate to f urther fashion .J!l
i. :.::: . .:;ur: .inl.u lCG !
(
I
I
'
I
~ i _.. .
DECISION
CTA CASE
O. 2355 .. 7 - a sat'sfactorily settled legal situation . 8 Moreover , by havi ng declared t he mi li t ar y weapons as "Used Pe r sonal Effects" offers no ~om- forting alte rnative .
• such could be a gr asping vulgar ity in the ploy, an effrontery that provokes disbelief .
Pe itioner has overp ayed his under- s t and i ng of "personal effects" and oversimplified what does not seem to fit.
But candor would have proved disastr ous for a venture he was unprepared ~ Petitione r wanted r esults he got consequences. "Wh i le it is true that f irear ms may be for personal use of the cla imant, nevertheless , there is no known authori t y in Customs jurisdiction which have ru l ed t ha ' f i r earms ' are considered personal effec t s. On the contr ary f i rearms are always considered as special kind of chatte l considering t hat the im- portation of wh i ch requires some sor of authority f rom the State . "
(Col ector's decis ici~ . Aptly enough , we uphold.
Although the r each of the iss~e on which we r es t our dec i s ion r enders the consideration of other subsidiary questions unnecessary , suffice it t o stat e t hat , f i rst, petitioner has placed hi mself sharp y at odds with the statutury ~r0s- cr i ptions, ma king unlawful for my person to 1mporl or possess any firearm unless allowed by law 16 '7 , !
'
I
•
- 8 - (Section 879, Revised ~dministrative Code)~ and, on arrival in the Philippines, having in his possession any f irearm or ammunitions for which . he has no license shall deposit the same, with'the Collector of Customs for delivery to the Chief of the Constabulary for safekeeping (Section 892, i b id.).
Petitioner has failed compliance, either -· he was unwilling to take responsibilit1cs or simply unable to discern what they are.
Second, the ill considered and misguided attempt at concealment of the dismantled armalite rifles in such innocent .· and innocuous " sansui" baffles is no less of furtive significance.
Such a specie of dodging and hidi ng wa s not propitious then , it cannot, LOW. These cir- cums t ances open decidedly contentious aff i l iating breaches which made a bad situation considerably wor se for petitioner.
\\THEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed wi th costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Quezon City, Metro Man ila, May 31, 1983.