Qef'Orlic Ow:'. Fm P~Ltli'Ptl'Tf ~Ou T of Tax J, et al. vs. The Honorlagle Cot·11hssioner of Customs

DECISION

Petitioner seeks to vocate res~ onden t Commissioner of C us to n1 s 1 rl e cis ion dismissing an a r p A a l from a n 0 r de r of t he Coll ect or o f Customs of the Port of Manil ~ for- feiting in fAvor of the QOvernme nt thP ent i re shipment in four (4) ro ntainer vans of woodfibcr accoustic al boards as well as 210 cartons of Jock sets as violative of Sect ion 2530 ( f) and (1) - 3, 4 and 5 in relation with Ser tion 2503, both of the Tariff 8nd Cu s toms Code , r esper tiv e Jy q u 0 t e cl as r u ll!l v! s : SEf' . 2530 .

P,operty StJbjert to Forfeiture Under T;1ri ff and Custorns Law.- .i\ny vehicle, vessel, :1r a ircraft, cargo , article ond o the r objec t s shal l, under the Po Jlo wi ng conditions be sub_jccted to f orfeilure:

X

X

X

X

(i") Any article the importation or ex por t a tio n of v<h i ch i s effected or at tempted con tr ary 128

Bee

oa

Su

oe soy D gO + we Oo 5 5 ~

Oo

Ro

article of prohibites exportation, and al othe} rticles which, in the odinicon of the Collertor, neve been used, are or were encered ta be used as i Tv ments in the importation or exparte of the forirer.

x x x

xd

(1) Any article sought to be imported ur ia) x

UO

S

4 cr 0 oF ~) On the strength of a false declaration a or affidavit executed by the uwner, importer, exporter or censienee con- g eerning the lmportation of such article;

“) Gn tt a False invoice or oG executed by the owne importer, exporter or ceuirignee oO ane ‘balion or cxport- t Lis F such articies; and a 4 3 ~ oat oo , oA Tete Penang Fa - 44 nee dervalustion, tiisclassificaticn ~ and = ;

Provided, That, an undervaluation, misdecla 9 4 c aban im weight, weasurement ar quantity of mere toon 80% between the vaiue, weighL., mo isupemenc or quantiby declared in the entry, and the corres value, weight, quantity of teasurement, snAodl cons- Eicute a Pima evidence of fraud penmslized under be

Section 25

u 3 oe coy be 4 ee .)

ot m9 a a ~

B

fe ;

simpol ¥ of ce .

On April 7, 1963, the SH MHOANGKORG ACE" arvived ot sek of Benita from Japana, conveying and discharging others, four (4) container vans ssid to canknin 130 3908 2,490 carton boxes of Woodfiber Acc Bosrdus under oustical the "Shofuku Steamship Co., Lhd." B/L No, KHZ - 03441, consigned to the petitioner, Cveing business in tie "DECIMAL UERCHANDISING", and so dee Formal Entry Ao. 23346-83 valued at Upon inspection of the four (4 rn imported Woodfiber Accoustical and Loaded", the Customs autior.tic undeclared shipmwent af 240 cartons sets © lhe brand arrying lo inside the “ated deep ry by the cartons consisting of sccous "caqually distributed in the four co area 2ACZ boos $3 .

US98, 343.18, which percentage diffe lated in Customs In- US$6,247,80,

Ne

5 "wherean Beards were packed Ss stumbled upon an deor kKnebs or torck which “were Found and cay oi, 1¢ ty er tical beards” and ntainera’, appraised al duclared end uwiceclared items is more tian 59%. Accorcd- ingly, the tureau of Customs instituted ceizure provesdingas against Lhe entire shipment for vioiat oF Section Bs GCf) omed £1) , i and 5 Lf bie farif and poetharpie fo ey eh Z£I30CT QE Loa tes tg ‘ ana > cd ciie au bert GAG VLUSTORS LOoCe,

SUPT Bs

After due bearing the Collector of Customs decreed “tne entire chips enmb ain the four containers said to contain VeodPiber Accoustical Borids as well as the "sitat@ght" Lock sets found Pherein, covera! By Seizure identification No, 425-83." Jn appeal, respandoent 131i

DECISTGN ~-

CTA CASE NO. 3906 co Commissioner of Customs, "finding no cagent reason to disturb tne decisian of the Collector," affirmed the Hence this petition.

In assailing the validity of the Order, petitioner seeks a limit to the applicsble coverage of the forfeiture as to exclude the legaliy imported shipment of acecnustical boards, having disciaimed «iv .jowledge, intent much less participation in the importatien of the undeclared 250 boxes (quantity eertified by the experter-supplier) of door knehs or Jock sets. Likewise urging a flip-flop to 8 Simpie case of “mis-shipment"” allegedly ecsonseqicaced by the error, negligence and inadvertence of the foreign ee of Forfeiture, tne Commissioner Liecter's Findings that - "ihe undeclared 2iG (sic) boxes of lock sets were Found located seep inside the con- talners, bidden and covered by the cartans cConsisidicg of accoustical boards. Wore ine triquitya is the fact that these 210 boxes of loukse were almast equally distributed in the four containers, fo give a vivid picture - Container Na. SRLU-2235- a :

underlaiid loeks, Cent 7s SS captiuns, Container Gerbors amd SKLUA22 3089 Cencluded as thus ~ "This OGffice believes that fireud in this case ia solf-evidernt. The arrangerent and the manner wt distribution of the undeclared lock

DECISI ON -

CTA CASE NO . 3908 -- 5 - set s in each container cannot countenance alle~ntion c f mis-shipment .

Fr oud here is patent and it has undoubtedly shown 1 in pure logical sense , the connivanc ~ of both the shippe r and herei n claimant in the effort to prejud ice the interest of the government .

As what can be aptly stated, forfeiture must lie."

We runch the same conclusion .

Petitioner's

finagling seems no more t h an a clumsy attempt to diffus e the delinquency .

The apparent quibble on a "mis-shipment" can hardly be s re assu ring prospect that can easily be rec on ciJecl v1ith the statutory intendment . Far be it from a comedy of errors the cargo stuffing was neither slipshod nor unprofessional and which the parties concern just knew what there was to be known.

Innoruous and

innocent-.

a:~ rn :J cl e to a p p e <J r , t h c s c hem c , no 1 e s s of furtive significance , brooks no instant e. culpation. Per h aps there is not hi ng wrong v1ith n "rniship :ne nt" but there is !lolhing ingratiatingly right either and th e fact is the law has been violated. Such specie of dodg ing of the mold a s th e case at bar was not propitious t h e n , i t r: a n n o t , n o v1 • U p o n t. h e r e c o r d s b e f o r· e U s t h e r e i s n o t h i n g t o t ::1 k P the case out 1 r· the operativ e effects of the sb:Jtutnr y proscription nu understood and applied. The circumstances o b tc1 j n in q h <l v c c 1 ear l y brought t h c rw U t io n e r ' s situ u l i o 11 133 - - -

DECI SION -

CTA CASE NO , 3~08 - 6 - wi th in the ravcat en joi ned in Section 2503 of the customs J a \'I , ~r a , that an under v u l u o t. ion of more than 50 % between the decl ared and und ecla red items constitutes a rri ma evidence of f ra ud, And a findin g of a 1 33~~ dis crepa nc y in the inst;:J nt t:nse unduly str aining the ull owable latitude o f 50% could be no mRre random quirk nnr niggling picay une to bor the forfeiture of th e quest i onnd shipments Lf C. he petitioner.

Sectio n 2530( f ) and ( 1) - 3, 4 and 5 of the Tariff a n d Custorns Code, supra, e xpl icitly directs the f o1·feiture nf ilJegally .

imported go ods, as we ll as the goods or articles which vJ(~ r e u ~; n d n ~;

.i 1 1 :.~ l. r urn en t s i n the j m p n r t n t ion • ~J II r I~ U fH r , l he petit :i. on is v::i thou t rn e r it and the s <J me is heT' f'by rlisrn i ~~se d vvith cnsts nqn:inst the petit i oner. SU ORDLf\FD.

Que zon City, Metro Moni la, June 30 , ]986. 13 4