Republic of' Th£' Philippines Court of Tax Appeals Quezon Clty ~Alter Sigried Munch vs. Commissioner of Customs

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO. 3784 - 2 - Code ; that the i mportation was accordingly decreed fo r f~ited i n Seizure I dentification No. 4810-82 dated November 10 , 1982 as subsequently affirmed by the Com- mi ssioner of Customs in hi s decision , supra ~ By and large , pe~itioner would have the reexport- ati on of the equipment by having the decree of for- feiture reconsidered and reversed nestled on such j ustification, v i z.: 1) .good fai t h and lack of f raud- ulent intent and knowledge of the prohibiti on, and 2) .the offi ce of the National Telecommunication Commis- sion i nterposes no objection to the re-exportation of the same .

The basic questi on is nothing more than the effective application and enforcement of the pertinent provision of the Cust oms l aws brough t to bear upon the circum- stanc:es of the case before Us.

We a r e less impressed. by what petitioner alleges than what he f ailed compliance.

l't: is hardly necessary to observe that petitioner points to no irregularity nor error of relevance and competence required to bash that patina of legality o"Jer the Customs' Order of f or fe i ture.

The proffered good faith and disclaimer to any knowledge of the law can no onger be a prospect that c:an easily be reconciled wi th the i ntended imperati ve. The equipment sought to be entered has fallen short of measuring up to the compelling import and force of the ..

DECISION

CTA CASE NO. 3784 - 3 - rule.

The desired relief must, as it did , end in a note of ineffectuality • .

Moreover , we are not to confuse the circumstances as they might be but as they actually were at the ~i me of e·ntry nor be mis~ed on what petitioner expects for himself by way of entitlement but what he should expect from an i mportation effected or attempted contrary to law .

The Presidential instruction provides , inter al i a , "confiscate all radio transmitters or transceivers not duly registered.. (LOI No. 13-A) '· and as ampl ified, the regulatory authority directs, 11as a matter .of policy, we are not disposed to giving any permit to purchase/ possess or license for install ation and operation of said sets" and 11 such equ ipment that are being brought into the country and passing thru the Customs be confis- cated and forfeited in favor of the Government if they are not covered by a duly issued and valid permit to purchase/ possess from this Commission ."

(Letter of the

Commissione:r of the National Telecommunicati on Commis- sion to the Collector. of Customs:, MIA, July 23, 1982) •. The articles are within that class of merchandise 11 the i mportation of which is effected or attempted contrary to lawn subject to forfeiture under Se-ction 2530 (f) _of the Tariff and Customs Code.

Indeed, there can be no further occasion to speculate upon how the statute should be enforced.

' .' ·

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO . 3784 - 4 - It is of no consequence whatsoever whether the importation was made in good faith by disclaiming knowledge of the existing legal constraint. It adds no i nsu l ating panacea; otherwise by one's own wrong the l aw can be flouted with impunity . We are not there- fore prepared t o attach any importance to this claim at "self-exoneration." It was not propitious then , i t cannot, now.

The apparent short- order -whipped-up acquiescence of the Commissioner of the National Tele- communication Commission for the r e-exportation of the forfeited property seems mor~ generous than candid. Such c·ould be a clumsy attempt of defusing a peremptory irresistible legal sanction.

I t would have stretched t oo far t he effecti ve range of authority. And , that is nei the·r here nor there.

Such a luxuriance of an expediency cannot be our "cup of tea", so to speak. As aptly stated by the r espondent Commissioner of Customs , "The r e- exportation of the transceivers in question cannot be allowed inasmuch as i ntent to i mport has already been shown by the evidence , notwithstanding the fac t that the NTC i nter poses no objecti on· to their re-exportation." Let it suffice that "The Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction over i mported goods for the purpose of enforcement of the Customs laws from t he moment .the goods are actually in its possession or control. " (Ponce Enrile v. Vinuya , 37 SCRA 381; Collector u

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO . 3784 - .5 - of Customs v. Torres, 45 SCRA 272; Virata v . Aquino 53 SCRA 24} •.

And, "The Collector of Customs when sitti ng i n forfeiture proceedings, constitutes a tribunal upon which the l aw conf ers j urisdi ction t o determine all questions touching the forfeiture and further di sposition of the i llegall y imported merchandise. "

{Auyong Hi an v . Court of Tax Appeals, 59 SCRA} •.

Short of uncritical leniency we cannot say that any different c:onclusion ought to follow but t o apply thebw as we f ind it . Upon the r ecords before Us there i s noth i ng to take t he case out of the operative effects of the statutory pr oscr iption a s understood and appl i ed . "The law must be obeyed .

I.t is not enough that i t may seem to us to be impol itic or even oppressive.

It is not enough that in i ts making , great historical traditions of generosity have been ignored o Our duty i s done when we ascertain that it ha s kept wi t hin i ts power . "

(People v . Crane, 214 NY 154} ~ So it appears that was no error in the decision appealed from and the same is affir med and it is so ordered. Quezon Ci ty , Metro Manila , May 15, 1985.

WE CONCUR:

• ROAQUIN

Judge