CTA Case No. 4166

decision

renc: •::? r··ed by the Dist r· ict Coll ector of Customs , Port of Iloilo, on Marc h 19, 1987, finding the ve ss~~ l.

M/ T

"ULU l.tJA I" gui 1 ty of violating Section 2530 ( c:~ ) of the Tar if ·f a nd Customs Code of t he

Philippines

(PO

1464), as a mended, and its cargo of 1, 100 metric tons of Gas Oi 1 a nd 1, 000 metric tons of Fuel Oil guilty of viol a ting Section

2530(a) ~ ( f ) and

(1) - 1 o~ the same

Code

and ordering the forfeiture of the said vessel and its cargo.

There is no substantial dispute on the facts as stated in the decision of the District Collector of Customs 01 Iloilo and as adopted in the decision of respondent Commissioner of Customs, to wit: The M/T "ULU WAI" enter· ed Phi 1 ipp.ine t:err-itor ... i .• ~l Wc!.'l.te r-·s and on

May

.14~ .1986 anchored at the vicinity of

Guiuanon

I s land which is under the t erritorial Jurisdic tion of the

Port

of

Iloilo~

without notifying the

Iloilo

Cus toms au thor i ties.

The prese ncn of the vesse 1 only came to the knowl e dge of the Iloilo

Customs

authorities by information ·fLll~nished by civilian infot'·mer-f:; in the ar-ea.

Act i.n~1 on the s aid in fnr ma 'I: .ion~ Co 1 1 e c: to r· G i 1

[I •

A r-m a cl <~ , A c t. i. n q D i s t r .. .i c t:. Collector· of Iloilo, di s patc hed

~ Customc

Team

on

May

19, 1986 to vrri fy the r-l'~ por"l: • The

CLls'toms

Tea m confirmed ttl£~ presence of the vessel a nd found out that she was loaded with 1, 1 00 metri c tons of gas oi J.

and 1, 000 metr-ic t:cm!::;

o'f' fuc J.

oi 1 .

A ·{·.ug hoa t 1~/T "Ca thP,'>.d" a11d a bar-· ~1e "Semi rara No.

8104·" we r-e a 1 ong s ide the vessel.

Likewise, the Customs Team found out that the vessel did not have on board the r-·equi red ship' !:i and shipping documents, except for a clearance from the port authorities of

Singapore

clearing the VE?Sse 1 for "Zamboan" .

DECISION

CTA CASE NO.

~166 ::::: --· In v i e w thereof, the . vessel a nd i t s cargo was he ld and a l.Ja r-r,':\nt of Sei zure and Deten t icm over·· the same was issued~ after due investigation.

Lik e wise , in thF..?

hearing, the pl ai ntiff thru c ounse l s agreed on f acts wh ic h ~-.!ere duly hea r i ng o f ficer.

cour·se of th E.~ <:md def e nd a n t. s a s t.i pu.l ,':\ t.ion of approved by the The facts stipulate d a r e as f ollows: 1.

That the existence and i dentity o f

M/T

"ULLJ WAI", subject of S I - 2 - 86, here in identified as E:d1. "A", is-, a dmitt e d ~ - ~ .

' 2.

That t he existen c e and i dent i ty o f 1,100 metric ton s of gas oi l, subjec t of SJ - 2-86 -··A, herei n identi fied as E:.: h. "B ", is admitted ;

3 .

That t he existence anrl i denti t y o ·f 1~000 metr·ic to1·1:;

o f fu e l oi l, s ub ject o f Fi I --2·- !36·-A her··ei n idenl::ifi ed <l.S E::h .

"B--1", is .:~ clm it t E• d;

4.

Tha t

M/ T

"ULU ~\l('tJ ."

lef t Sing a por-e Mi:l.y 6, l98t:> a n d '"as c l eared by Sing a pore cus toms au thorities f or lam boanga , Philippines ;

5.

Tha t s ubjec t vesse 1 ar-r ived at

Guiuanon

Isl a nd, Munic ipa lity o ·f Nueva Va 1 erJF- ia, Sub- province of Guimaras,

Province

of Iloilo, Philippines, about 1120HRS, May 14, 1986;

6.

That subject vess el was boarded by

Customs

and

Immigration

authorities for the f irs t time

-- 4 - in the afternoon of

May

19, 1986, a t about 1600HRS;

7 .

That

an appre he nsion r eport dated May 21., 1986, s ubmitted by the

Team

Leader

of the Cus toms a nd I mmi gration Team, Roberto Intrepido, marked and identified as E:·:h.

"C"

i s admitte d;

8.

That at the . time of boa r ding , the Mas t e r of subject vesse l cou ld not produce a ny s hi p and /o r s h ipping doc uments regard .ing her Ci:H"QD .~~::ce p t the F'or·t Cl earan ce Cc~r-t.i f i.e a te No.

179999 issued by the Port. of Si ngapore Au thority dated ' May 4, 1986, mar-:.1-: ed as E:.: h.

"D"

which is hereby admitted;

9.

That

on

May

26, .1 986, thE~

Master of

the

MIT

"ULU

WAI"

Capt. Romeo E.

Deposa f i led a Marine Protest d ated same date, which

Marine

Protest, mar ked and identif ied as E:<h. "E", i s hereby admitted;

10.

That

the sai d Capt.

marked and "F", given before Hinoj<3.les, Offic:t?r, is sworn statPmen t of

Romeo

E.

Deposa, identified as E::h .

o n

May

26, 1986 Atty.

Hernando

Customs

Legal

ad mi t.tE:~d;

11.

That the s worn statement of Mr.

Antonio

Tor~e s, Own e r 's representative of

M/T

"ULU WA I", marked and identified as E:·:h.

"G"

given before Atty.

Her-nando Hinoj ales o n

May

28, 1986, is admitted;

_.,.

5 - 12 .

That

the swo rn statement of

Wilfreda

Lumagpas,

Master

of MIT "Cathead" given be ·fo re L.t. Dennis Az arraga on June 4, 1986 mar·ked a nd identifi e d i:\ S E:-: h .

"H", is adrnitt~~d;

1 :::, That the e:-: i sten ce of F i:-:ture Note No.

FN- M- 86- 05- 41 entered into by and between the

National

Stevedori ng & L.ighter·age Cor-poration and t h e

Far East

S y nergy Cor poration , marked and iden tifi e d a s E:-: h.

"I", i s admitted; and 14 .

That the

P re 1 iminary Repor-t of S urve y

Sounding

Repor t dated ,J une 17,

l. 986, s igned b y ,J.P.

l....i. k e ~'li SF], F'iad,

Surveynr

of I nterpnr·t S urve ying Services, I n c.

and duly atteste d by E r nPstn Cu tay, Chi e f Offic e r· of thP

M/ T

" UL. U WA I", mar· ked and .i..d Pn ti f .ied a s E:-:h.

" ,J" .is a l so ,,,d mit:tecl. in the con sn lidate d seiz u re procPe d .i n gs (Sei zure Identifi c:~:lti.on No. 2-86 fo 1~ th F!

v essP l a nd Se :i.zure '" Identificati o n No.

2 - 86- A

were instituted on May 30, .1986 ;:md jointly hea rd initially on

July

7, 1986, petitioner

Feeder

International Line PTE, Ltd., owner/claimant of the vessel "ULU WAI" c:md its cargo, fil e d a "Motion To

Dismiss

and To

Quash

War rants nf

Seizure

and 7:.6

DEC TISTON

CTA CASE NO. 41646 & Detention" an December 3, L986 on the grounc that the government failed to establish thm existence of probable cause on the basis of the evidence presented, but said motion was denied by the

District Collector of Customs of Tleilo on December

12, 1996, Consequently, on dJanttary 2t2 and 20, 1987, petitioner presented its evidence consisting of the testimonies of Hr. Wileen lim, Fresident of Feeder International (Fhils.), Inc. and Captain Rameo Deposa, Master of the vessel M/T “ULU WAI" and Exhibits "I", "2, MAN TRAN, TRE MRRHDN MAG, "Am AN, MA-BU Udell Mam hen. M7 VB and Tet ote establish the defense that the vosnmel M/T UULED WAT" drifted to Guiuanan stand, Girimaranc, Iloilo, an distress" and that her cargo of gos o11 and fuel were covered by the necessary shiping documents, namelys

1. Local Purchase Order ‘dated April =B x 1986 issued by Fogun Construction SDN -~- BHD with offices at Fogun House, Tuanon Road, Fota Kinabalu, Sabah, East Malaysia. (Exh. 2) ean Bill of Lading issued on May 5, 1986 by Feeder International line FTE, Ltd., with address at 10 Anson Road,

DECTSTON

CTA CASE NO. 41466 International FPlaza, Singapore, covering the shipment ain bulk 2,100 tans of gas Oi) and fuel ail, with Far East Synergy Corporation, Zamboanga, Fhilippines, as the consignee, and Sabah as the Port of Discharge and Singapore as the pork of loading. (Exbs, 2, Bef & el) oe The mani fest comtaaning the details of the shipment and that Feeder International Line FTE, Ltd. is the shipper and Far East Synergy Corporation is the cansignee. (Exh. 4) On Mareh 19, 19897, the District Collector of Customs of Tleilo rendered his decision in seLlzure praceedings (S.7%. Nos. 2-86 and 2-86-A),— the dispositive portion of which states:

which decision, on appeal, was affirmed mm toto the “WHEREFORE, premises considered, the M/T CULU WAT’ ais hereby found aquilty of

Violating Section 2520(a) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (FD

1464), as amended, while cargo lof 1,100 MT Gas O21] and 21,000 MAT Fuel O11 are hereby faund guilty af violating Section SQS0Ca), CF} and (lj-t under the same Cade and are hereby forfeited ain favor of the Republic af the Fhilippines."

May 13, 1967.

Vv

Hence, tho present petition for review.

The issue for resolutian is whether or nok pt es hy Commissioner of Customs in his decision dated the essel M/T “"ULU WAIT" and its cargo are liable to

DECISION ~

CTA CASE NO. 14166 forfeiture for violation of Sectien BAZOCA), (Ff) and (1l)-1 of the Tariff and Customs Code, which pertinently provides as follows:

"Section Bako, Property. Gubject te LAW ~ Any vehicle, vessel or aircraft, cargo “« *« # shall, under the following conditions be subject to forfeitures:

"AL Any vehicle, vessel or aircraft, aincluding cargo, which shall be used unlawfully in the ° impartation or exportation af articles or the conveying and/or transporting comtraband or smuggled articles ir commercial quantities to or from any Fhilippine port or place x x KE Mase te wee

MMM MMM

of, Any article the importation oar exportation of which is effected or attempted contrary to Jaw, or any article qf prohibited importation oar exportation «x oMs "2. Any article sought to be imported or exported.

(1) Without going through a customs house, whether the act was consummated, frustrated or attempted;

The facts and circumstances borne by the evidence adduced — jn the Selaure proceedings mer.

DECISION

CTA CASE NO. 4166 o- sufficiently establish that an illeqal importation, or at least an attempt thereoaf, has been committed in this case with the use of the vessel M/T "ULU WAT", thus warranting the forfeiture of said vessel and its cargo under the foregoing provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code.

Admittedly, the vessel M/F "ULU WAT", af Hunduran Registry, came fram Singapore loaded with a cargo of 1,100 metric tons of Gas O11 and £1,000 metric tons of Fuel Oil and anchored an Hay 14, 1986 at Guiuanon Island, Guimaras, Tlaijoa, which was within the territorial jurisdiction of the Fhilippines. Tt didi met moataify the Tlealo port or custams authoritien af ate arrival ond clwan th was hoarded by custams and immigration of Firemrs aay May 19, JGBG, after being in faramech oor ibs preeanee, the captain or master of the vessel, Romeg Depogsa, could nat submit any shipping docitments except a Fort Clearance Certificate issued hy the Singapore Part authority (Exhs."D" & "S") showing, among others, that its cargo was "bunker of1" ancl its destination WAS "Zamboan" (or as admitted, Zamboanga). Furthermore, at the time the vessel -

DECTISTON

CTA CASE NO. 11466 was apprehended by said customs fdeam, ai tugboat named M/T "Cathread" and a berae, "“Semirarsa No. B104", contracted by the consignee of the cargo, were alongside the vessel for bhe purpose of transferring its cargo to the barge and hringing it to Manila. Said tugboat and barge anhually arrived and went alongside M/T “ULU WAT" at Gttiteanan Island, Tloilo, on May 18, 1986 bub Che unloandiang of the oi) could moat be effected immediately because of the presence of water ain the barge and it still needed cleaning.

The intent to unload or transfer the oil from the vessel M/T "ULU WAT™ ta the barae and to bring the same to Manila is evidenced by: (2) Serorn Statement of Wilfreda Lumadpas, Mouher of the M/T "Cathead" (Exh. "H", pp. OBL COS, Custams emer. )§

(2) Fixture Note or Charter Contract (No. FPMeM 86- OS-41) between the National Stevedoring R, Lighterage Corporation, owner/operator of the ’ tugboat M/T "Cathead" and barge Semirara 8104 and the Far East Synergy Corporation, consignee of the cargo and ch terers (Exhs. "I" and "“I-i", p. 279, Customs rec.) ands (3) testimony of Mr. Salvador

DECTS TOM

CTA CASE NO. 47144 Asencio, dro. Operations Gupesrdratordent of Ceti ~~ Operations of Hakional Stovecoridoea and baghtoracde Corporation. And the feet otlr Ebley mad fiad reat been transferred to the bere mtr) Phe eres homes authorities er rawed bec oese bie barge neaaded cleaning and tit might contaminate: for spoaid) the ' OL] ais likewise substantiated by Lins testimonies of Salvacor Acme LO» div. oe Tnady a 1966 hear tig. fs OES Cites feames retin} al Wid frede Lumagpas, Plaster oof MAT UCeat bored ™ arses pepn dye Py t.seiieg July 2B, FAG test tire, op SOR fori heynes rec.) ane bis awornm statement CeEeh. MUN, py. Ga. “Oo ~ eB2, Customs rec.a).

Under Geetiony LEOB of the Ter iff ornet Crstame Cocke s “Tnportation besey dies ceary bby carrying vessel oor atroerafl oomnkers tlio Juried. obion af thes Pha daigy inves weitds intention to unload therei:g., ow and Section 2a30 af the same Code, as heretofore cited, seeks to penalize by forfeiture even an attempt to smuggle or import contrary to law articles into the FPhilippines. The law does not cantemplate to penalize only the importation into the country of contrabands or articles absolutely aN , .,

DECISION =

CTA CASE NO. 4164 prohibited but also articles rel abisel y proobibited or thase the importatian cf mb eb Fe ESS compliance with the recqui remen ts of law. Thndeacd, oil is net per se prohibited but ite importation 16 regulated under Central Bank Circular Ne. 1O29, requiring as ai prerequisite thereof aio permit or clearance trom the appropriate Agency oof the Fhilippine government.

Fetitioner contends, however, khat thm rmarga Of o11 was not intended to be imported into the Philippines but ta Sabah, Malaysia. It claims that the oil was merely to be inapected by the monsignee in Zamboanga befare its final delivery toa Sabah, but on the way to Zamboanga on dia, LT), AeAo, hhe 2l’s auvitdliaary generator and peecdto Pfacttikbites Drake dowrs Pirat o beanie tr caesb es gy Rye roeerae proceeded ta Gudiuanan sbamd, Otpiaear as, Ploale, Which was onear Tiaito Caty anc omhore the needed spare parts could be purchased ; (hat mexcapk far the Fort Clearance certificate from Singapare Fort Authority (Exhs. “pn & "S"), the shipping documents covering the shipment af oil, mamely: (1) Local

Purchase Qrder by Fogun Canstruction SDN BHD with

4 6) rd

DEC TSION ~

office at FPogum House, Eota Einabaln, Sabah, Past Malaysia; (2) Bill of lading caver tied the shipment dated May 4, 1986 issued by potittaner Peeder International (Exh. F)y and (3%) Menifest (Mih. 4), were nok turned over by the captain ta the customs team when they boarded the vessel on May 19, 1°86 hecause said documents NPY €D foskuarny ear Liar by Mr. Ankanaia Torres, thie 2 eed s beac at representativevagent, when he came on bord one May 15, i9heés That, cin fact, meal a cio mf oil has been unloaded from the vesset te Lhe baran.

A critdead ane edrecumapect er stoabkiany oat the evidenees and orecords of the case vmpe ds oes fa res] reject pehitiener’ es pastubat ton, The oshippitaq domumente promcep tid as es telepee hy pati tienes foo miippear t Rhee pee th yon mpm ogy doubt ful credibility and canner, 5 reseponideary€ argues, be given evidentiary weiali!., considering the following factorss

(1) Said documents were presentead only more than eight (8) months after the customs authorities boarded the vessel M/T “ULL WAT". The Tariff and Customs Code requires that the shipping documents

DECISION

CTA CASE NO. F154 must be with the vessel oondomisl bee presctetod ty the master upon argpival an ties favdapptres, Tf indeed such documents alroady exichoad ak -he time the vessel M/T “ULU WAT’ aneherod oak Tatiuanon Island, and they were just taken by the shipoagant, Antonia Torres, whoa boardod the veousel on May iS, 1986 or 4 days prio-p to the arrival of the costome team, why wore nat sald Shap pine dorciimen ts submitted toa the customs authorities at leact within a reasonable time considering that they; were Vitally wequired by daw ta be presented Lye Ere master, agent ar ocwrear af the wees cob wpe orrivad from a foreign port? oe (2 Tf atoats true That thre chomtiameryt ocr dy ergs the local Purchase Order of thea tiweer of oi). Pagan Construction SDN RAID af Eobka tipabalu, Svaheaby. Malaysia, wes hkurned over by the raptain of the vessel to t. a shipagent, fre. Antonio Terres, when he boarcded the vessel on May 15, 1°86, why is it that in his sworn statement tia the customs authorities ala) May 20 , 1986 at the Tloilo customshouse (Exh. "G"), Antonia Torres bluntly stated that he did not know who was the buyer of mn.

DECISTON

CTA CASE NO. 4164 the oil? Goredly, df he tiered fhe Prchace Oder, he would know who the buyer is. Mie tf be died also the shipping documents suchas The ball oof fLadsing and cargo manife why ras ato tiok in tle same sworn statement, Mr. Antonia Vora’ Jr Leneleye about the cargo and port of desbinstion came fram information given only by the weesedos gener and not fram the very shi preiag Goacauments: whack todicahke such data? (See op. 4, srorn shabowmenkt of Antontea Torres TExh, "G"J, pp. S80 & Fer, (estomn ree.)

(2) Moreeaver, the captain of the sesceh M/T “ULU WAT" Fomeo Deposa, in his meorn statement ke the customs authorities an May é, 1?86, entarmrcatod the documentr he allegqrmidty a hoo Tie. | An hear) Torres when Lhe dakber boarelead bles oyverronesd oon May 15, .1985, bebo did moto omesitiaet aa amepq bbe Lhe lLacal Purchase Order af Pogun ons we bitoan GPE ane the Bill of Lading. Thus:

QQ. Could you enumerate the documents you give to Mr. Torres?

A. Yes, sir. They are license of the vessel, all licenses of the officers, passports, seaman hooks, crew lists, caasting manifest, (Exh. "F', op. 289, custams rec.)

In fact, he also said in the same sworn statement ran oe

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO. 4lGé that he did mot know the canstiane af the soil. Certainly, if he had the shapping dorimentes ger by aes the bill af lading an board tls vessel Prom Singapore, he would know the caneiqgnen, (Exh. URN,

p. “270, Customs rec.)

Additionally, it alsn appears fram tla sworn statement of Hr. Antonio Torros, the shipgeorsnt, that at was bbe madam qervencabesr crf Cts cesses PB pyat was damaged are pak bhe ares dt rey tpesess a tien contrary to the silatement of Peamec bapesa, ec eqohiaias of the vessel, (See pe. SBA, coeeberns trae. 4 Maat tte Port Clearance Uerhificate apeseed Fy ther fat oof > Singapore Aubhority CRatye. Up © TP pa, TO Customs rec.) dndieathes kh to thee corte af bly UN WAT’ iss “bocusdees Ged end opyert gp ge feet aad. Ldkewiee, why did fhe ergata fides Ube tity Live protest only an May 26, T°86 or te days From the date Lt anchored cre 7 Chay after cies homes autharittes boarded the vessel owls Che Cos home Code requires him to do so within 24 hours after arrival, if indeed the vessel was in Verily, the questionable, comflieting ana negatin facta f id bel tit on pet ony

DECISION

CTA COGE NO. 4156 defense that there was mo diabhenmbier her contre tes oe import illegoilly the carga of qan aed furedoaet inta the Fhilippanes. And the peopestevesere ga cube epee VT dpert the purported shipping dootimenides CF che. PR anc "Ay, Which Were offered ee petitioner oonly during the une boms hear trey oan January Us and 20, A987, coulda hase hee pope ed * only after the apprehension ct the camecad ated the institution of foe ceteure pracoerbirss.

Ak any rake, as discusered fer cbofore, ee find ample evidence that the carge of ull weve Lia bee unloaded from tie vessel FIYT CUP U CRS E' oabk Grietsranien Taland, Tileito aie brmugtil he Tharmyi dian, This atamony of Wil frede limes, on hbve tugboat fM/T "lattivead™ which: weet dois ish apy cured the MeV CULE WOT sd ther bk oP Gobo caebine ASANO. Uta s ey official oft they Wat aronad Stevedoring and Laghterage Corporation, which own said tugboat and barge, as well as the Pairture mote or Charter Contract (Exh. "I") between National Stevedoring and the é€onsignee for the use of the tugboat and barge in the unloading of the oll from oe

DECISTON

CTA CASE NO. 4144 the vessel and shipping said carga bo Mandi, are substantial and credible eqrouedgh hey prayer the illegal importation or am attempt Thereof, The argument that mot ai dregpy oof ya | fray actually been whloaded fram ihe yesgerm ) ba the barge is of na moment. For, as stated meaclior, the law anvisions that even an attempt te allegaully impor | conetitubes ai vinlatieon ard ie purvte dabte, re nok mec sary that othe acl oof aldevpad tapror bodies ar smuggling he consummated ov hose gndapabeeb. Tt would suffices. that the versel frrryn oy froresrepa prap t anters the lerraicorial dsp aesedae Coens oud Chie Philippines with intent ro a prohibit tect impor takyan mi woe Te gs whan ts Are relatively profihbitedty tare. up tae tes oudbie dy omurt canply with impork reqtirarecits, We quote with approval opospreeeband ors ponidiaeny in his mamorandium an this pont:

Petitioner contends thak simee "net a drop of oil was orntoaced tfroam the vessel) when bearded by Tloilo Customs Authorities," there was mot violation of Section S2520(a), (ff) and (lel) of the Tariff and Custams Code benvause said section contemplates "at least ai shawinsg of (an) overt act te load and or discharge its cargo in the Fhilippines.

-

DECISI ON -··

·-

1. 9 --· Re s pondent r esp ~ttfully s u bmits that p e ti tion et-' s contention .is '"'" er-roneous interpretation of

Section

2530 ( a), (f) and ( 1 ) -1 in r·elation tcJ SE•c t i ons :35.14 and 1 202 of the Tariff a n d Cus toms CodA.

It is no t necessary for a vio l at i on nf said Section 2530(a), (f) ami (1 --1) t o exist that the ca rgo b~ actually unloa·ied.

It i s eno ugh to show t hat t:\fl "inte ·· l.

to unload " e:-: ist"!:;

becat.tf>e " i mpor ta t i on" as so defined in the Tal~ i "f f and Cus toms Code mere ly contem pl ates a n " intent to unload" .in any po r t or· pl ace withi n the jurisdiction of thA Philippines.

(pp .

1.88-·189, CTf.'l r ec. )

As a matter of fact., in one c a se dec: icl ed by thi s Court.

and affirmed by thn Supr-e:>m!~

Cour-t

(Asaa l i , e t al., vs. The Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No .

L- 24170, December 16, 1960), involving t h e seizure of fiv e:~ sai ling vessPlf:;

<lllcl t heir· ct~r ·go of foreign ma1 1u f ac tured c .i g c:lt-e t te~:;

1-J i_ l: hou t ,, J. "i.C:f·m ~:;e or· pE.•rm.i.t to e ng age .in i mp o r·tat .ic•1•, t1 1r·• fr.11 fr;' itun::~ was, justi.·f.i.ecl c~lthoug h t h E• i nl.f::•n:e p t i o n lly t.he customs te a m was made i n

t. h f.? high ~:;r· as.

T h e f irs t two erro r·s ~~ s i gned hy p e t.it.i. o n et'·s would impugn the'! ju r·i s d.i.ct.inn of thn Bur·e-ad o·f CusbJm!.:;

to in s ti tutP se.i ZLWe proceedings and the t· e a ·f ter· to dec l are th~ forfeitu re of the vesse l s in q uestion a n d thei r· cargo.

They

would j usti ·fy their stand thus: "In the light of the fact t hat the vessel s involved with the articles lad e n the rein were apprehended and seized on the high seas, beyond the territorial waters of the Philippines , the sa .id v esse l s could not

DECISION ~

CTA CASE NU 4146

ae have touched any place ar grat im ihe Philippines, whether a portoor place mf antry oor omok, cansoquant ly. the sated veseseli could moat have been engaged 1 the aimportation of the articles laden therein into any FRilippings port oor place, whether a port or plana of entre ar mat, to have incurred the liebility of forfeiture under Section J24 to) of the Revised Administrative Code.”

Such ai canteantion was advan tie petitioners before bhe fee kan Tras: Appeale, Tt met the repudiaticva that oat deserved, Thus: “Whe pape fer bbe grew yes point of the pektitianers bul coms ieee tig the rmircums tance aur rouriche ng Tyas apprehension of the veesede Fh question. we believe that Geetion Ltéetie)y mf hh Revised Administrative Cade oshearetd tare applied to the case at her. PL Aas been established that the fiver veorcels came from Sandakan, British Morth Fornea, « foreign port, and when antercopted, abl of them were heading towards VYoorietawiy 4 domestic port within the Gale cena. larcten with foreign manuifar tur ec Cigarebtties, they did not possess the ampor lt Limereas required by Republic Ack Ta. 496, ner cad they carry a permit from the Commiecr ionier of Customs to engage in dmpartabion inty any pork oan the Sulu sea. Oe announced loudly their Antention mae merely toa skirt along the territorial boundary of the Philippines tet tea come within our limits and land soanrewhere in Tawi-tawi towards which theit prows were pointed. As a matter af fact, they were about toa cross our aquatic boundary but for the intervention of a customs patrol which, from all appearances, was more than eager to accomplish its mission." The sense of realism and the Vigorous language employed by the late Judge Luciano in rejecting such a plea i+ # t ote deserve to be quoted. Thue: “To enter: tain even for a moment the theught that these vessels were prohably mot bound far a Fhilippine port would be bea much a concession even for ai simpleton ora perenni 1. antimist. Tt. 65 quri ke irrational for Filipino sadder manning five Fhilippine vessels to smeak ouwk of the Philippines and go to British Nearth Bornea, and came a long way Pack Jaden with highly taxable goods oanly te turn about upan reaching the brint cf car territorial waters and head fer anather foreign part."

WHEREFORE , the decision of respondent Commissioner af Customs dated May 13, 1987, ordering the forfeiture of the vessel M/T "UL WAI" for violation of Section 25%0(a) of the Tariff and Customs Codes, as amended, ancl dts cargo of 1,100 metric tans of Gas OLl ani! 1,000 rretrir toms of Fuel Oil for violation of Gention (9) CF) ancl C))--4 of the same Code, is hereby affirmec. With cmots.

SO ORDERMD.

oy Quesan City, Metro Manila, Teceuwtsye Pd, Fore,

AMANTE LLER

Fresiding Judge

on

DECTS TOM

CTA CASE NO. 4164

WE CONCUR:

ATANTE/ C. ROAQUIN

a] » REYES

CERTIF ICATIOUN

I here! vv certify that than decistean war reached after due consultation amang the inemheors of the Court of Tax Appeals Mey os cordance mith Section JS, Orbiecle VIET of the Canetti ktution,.

AMANTE

ha a ° © f “TILLER gq Turdee Courk oof Tay Appeaie