Private Jpep Braring Piats Ho, et al. vs. Casf No, et al.

REPUBLIC OF THF PHILIPPINES

GOURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY

PRIVATE JPEP BRARING

PIATS HO, BHO. 39-92, 213-705 oniven 2 MISS suonte

PNCARTACION» PASS ORR

ABD DAU OF OWNER OF

JUVPs and PRAMS OF

cramfron 1 OF BSC, Petitioners, versus C.TAs CASF NO, 2386 THR COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Slislas Respondent.

: a ee ee ee

BECZTS&EIOR

This is an appeal from the decision of respondent Commissioner of Customs dated May 2%, 1971, which modified that of the Colleetor of Customs ef Zamboanga, dated Merch 26, 1971.

In so far ag material to this appeal, the facts of the case are ae steted in the mesorantum of counsel for respondent dated May 30, 1974, as follows:

. The record shows that at ebout 4:40 P.M. og. offseeras neat 1970, We @ ras aie manning tpl _ estata thes at Pangi — jeep bearing They MO. Sse which wag bouné for Ca Zamboanga del Sur, for reuti ry inapestion in conneetion with the 's anti-~ drive anc discovered 50 reams of ag cigarettes om board the Py The said cigarettes were su counted and e ficate of owner was duly signed by the herein petitioner "leo- nor Bnearnacion, deughter of the registered SS Se ee oe ae ee women pessenzers, and by the driver of the ry §6

DECISION «

CTA CASE NO, 2386 2 jeep in the presence of the soprenesese team, which certificate was subse introduced in evidence and marked as Ex- hibit "A", Subsequently, the blue seal cigarettes were turned over to the CADA, a City, by the members of the ap- prehending team as evidenced by a transfer salir which was marked as Pxhibit "J".

The private jeep involved in this case was not ediately taken inte eustody by the apprehending officers as per request of petitioner “leonor "nearnacion and the driver who were allowed to use said jeep in Sot to ‘abasslen, danbeanga del Sur as they were benighted ard there was no more available transportation. It was efter the lepse of several days that these apprehending officers were able to acquire physical possession of the jeer and thet was after @ warrant of seizure and detention issued by the Collector of Customs was served on Abraham ‘nearnacion, father of petitioner Fleonor "ncarnacion,.

On Nareh 26, 1971, the Collector of Customs of damboanga rendered a decision decreeing the forfeiture of the aforesaid 50 reams of untaxed blee seal cigarettes bet ordering the release of the private jee bearing Plate lo. 33-9, 91-75. The outhwest Command, AFP, Zamboanga City, acting in behelf of the government, ap- led the decision of the Collector of ustoms to tne Commissioner of Customs, who, modifying the decision of the former, adjudged the forfeiture of the private jeep in question in favor of the covernment.

The Collector of Customs of Zamboanga ordered the forfeiture of 50 reams of untaxed Champion efgsrettes, but ordered the release of the jeep bearing Plate No. 33-9, 94 Jo70, for lmek of suffielent evidence to justi- fy its forfeiture, The owner or claimant of the jeep reouegted thet the jeep be released on the ground that seid decision is not appesalable by the Sovernment, citing Republie v. Dy Chay, 1 SCRA 975. The request ys 84

ORCISION ~

CTA CAST BO, 2386 3 was denied because the decision of the Collector of Customs was eppesled by Capt. Vietor ©. Jose of the 30W- RSCOM Task Foree Vulture which effeeted the seisure of said jeep. ‘espondent Commissioner of Customs gave due course to the appeal and reversed the decision cf the Colleetor of Customs in regard to the jeep in question. Hence, thie appesl by the owner of the jeep.

Two issues have been raised in this appeals (1) whether the appeal from the decision of the Collector of Customs of Zemboanga by the head of SOW'SCOM Task Foree Vulture 4s proper, and (2) whether the forfeiture of the said Jeep is valid. = Seetion 23713 of the Teriff and Customs Code provides:

The person ageri ecision or aetion of the Collecetor in any matter ¥- oun protest or by hk his action many case of seizure may, within fifteen De song notifieation in’ rs by the ector of his aetion or decision, give i> notice te the Collector of his desire to have the matter reviewed by th Commissioner, Ther the ‘ollector shell forthwith transmit a1] the records of the proceedings to the Commissioner, who shell approve, modify or reverse the action or decision of the Collector and take such steps and meke such orders as may be neces- sary to give effect to his decision.

Under this section of the Tariff and Customs Code only the person agzrizved by the deevision or action of the Colleetor of Customs in any case of selgure may appeal to the Commissioner of Customs, It was Capt. Jose, head of the SOw8SCOM Task Foree Vulture, @ government *» 88

DFCISION «

CTA CASE NO, 2386 & agency operating under the bureau of Custama, who appealed frem the decision of the Collector of Customs of Zamboanra. Neither Capt. Jose nor the Durean of Custors may be con- sidered the person agerieved by eaid decision of the Col- lector. Consequently, respondent has ne avt ority to give due course to the apnea] and his aetion in modifying or reversing the decision of the Collector is illegal.

It 4s mow well settled that “uniter the present lew governing the Burean of Customs, the decision of the Collector of Customs in a seigure case 4% not protested ami appealed by the importer (the person eggerieved) to the Commissioner of Customs on tine, decomes final not only as te him tut against the Government as well, and neither the Commissioner nor the Department head has the power to review, revise or modify such unappealed feci- sion." (Sy Men v. Jacinto, 93 Phil. 10934 11073 see also Actg. Colleetor of Onetoms v,. Acts. Commissioner of Cus- toms, 102 Phil, 244, cited in Reroblic ¥. Dy Chay, 1 SCRA 975) If the Commissioner of Customs does not agree with the action of « Collector of Customs in a seizure case, the remedy is not by an eppeal from the decision of the Collector but by the exercise cf his supervisory authority over Collectors of Customs before such decision shall heve become final. ‘Said the Suprene Courts

A

unappealed seizure cases is not ¢gonceded, then in cases where the Collector in his decision commits a blunder prejecdicial to the inter- DECISION «.

GTA CASE NO, 2386 5 ests of the Covernuent, or renders a decile sion through fren? or {- collusion with the importer, the levermment eannot protect it- self, ‘The argument is not without merit;

bet we must bear in wind that the law is promulzeteé to operate on ordinary, common, routine cases. © rule is an’ the lew pre- sumesg thet in seizure cases Collectors of Customs act honestly ond correctly und as Jovermment officials, always with an eye to the protection of the interests of the Govern- sent employing them. If mistakes are com- eitted at all mere often than not they are in favor of the Sovernment end not sgsinet it, and that is the reason why when the iaporter feels segrieveé by their éecision, he is given every chance ood facility to protest the deci- sion and apres] to the Commigsioner. Coses of erroneous decisions ageenes the iaterest of the Goverrment of decisions rendered in ecllusion emi conmnivence with importers are the exception. To orctect the Government in svueh exceptionel oeses, we find that in every seigure ease, section 1376 of the Nevise? Administrative Code requires the Collector to immediately netify the Commiesioner and the Auditor General. It may be that this require- mert hes for its sain purpose the recording of and secounting for the articles seized so that in case of confiscation the Commissioner ané the Auditer Generel will know whet articles have become ernment property. Dut the notice will also inform the Commissioner and the ‘u@itor General of the seisure. If the seiaure is important or unusuel, the Commissioner mney, if he so desires, order the “cllector as his subordinate te wi thhold action on the seizure, or holé in abeyenee, within a ressenable tine, the orommlgatiocn of hie decision until after he ha@ conferred with the Commissioner or the latter had studied the case and giver surzest- fons, At that stage of the prooredings before definite aetion ig taken by the “ollector, ané a @ecision rendered by him, it woulé seer that any action by his as a subordinate is stil ee te the supervisory euthority and con trol of the Commissioner as his Chief, and the latter ney still inflvence and direct the Collector's agtion if he fins eecasion for doing so. (Sy Man v. Jewinto, 93 Phil. 1093, 1105+1406.)

DPCISION

CTA CASE NO, 2386 6 The ease of Generoso de Leon v. Commiasioner of Customa, C.T.A. Noe 1942, Jan. 27, 1969 Is being cited in support of the ¢elaim that an appeal from the decision of a Collector of Customs in a seigure cage may be filed by officers of the Governmmert effecting the seizre. Thet case is not im point. The issue whether or not the appeal wae filed by the proper party was never raised in that ease and thig Court had no opportunity to pass upon said iesve,.

In view of ovr opinion that the respondent hes no authority to review, reverse or modify the decision of the Colleetor of Customs of Zamboanga upon appeal eof the officer who effected the seigure of the jeep in question, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the second tanne.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby set eside. iin 80 GRDRRFED.

qwezon City, May 15, 1975.

a ld ode ROMAN M, UMALY

Presiding Judge

hed WISIAG Re sind

Associate Judge

RAMON L. AVANCTRA

Associate Judge