Remedies Under The Tariff and Customs Code

REMEDIES UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE
A. SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF GOODS AND COMMODITIES 1. SEARCH, SEIZURE AND ARREST
Sec. 2201. Obstruction of Customs Premises. No person shall obstruct a customhouse, warehouse, office, wharf, street or other premises under the control of the Bureau of Customs, or any of the approaches to such house or premises. Sec. 2202. Special Surveillance for Protection of Customs Revenue and Prevention of Smuggling. In order to prevent smuggling and to secure the collection of the legal duties, taxes and other charges, the customs service shall exercise surveillance over the coast, beginning when a vessel or aircraft enters Philippine territory and concluding when the article imported therein has been legally passed through the customhouse. Sec. 2203. Persons Having Police Authority. For the enforcement of the customs and tariff laws, the following persons are authorized to effect searches, seizures and arrests comformably with the provisions of said laws: a. Officials of the Bureau of Customs, collectors, assistant collectors, deputy collectors, surveyors, security and secret-service agents, inspectors, port patrol officers and guards of the Bureau of Customs. b. Officers of the Philippine Navy when authorized by the Commissioner. c. Any person especially authorized in writing by the Commissioner. d. Officers generally empowered by law to effect arrests and execute processes of courts, when acting under direction of the Collector. e. Any person especially authorized by a Collector, subject to the restrictions stated in the next succeeding section. Persons exercising the powers hereinabove conferred shall, in the exercise thereof, have the same authority, be entitled to the proper protection, and shall be governed by the same law, not inconsistent with the provisions of this section, as other officers exercising police authority in general. Sec. 2204. Place Where Authority May Be Exercised. Persons acting under authority conferred pursuant to subsection (e) of the preceding section may exercise their authority *within the limits of the collection district only and *in or upon the particular vessel or aircraft, or *in the particular place, or in respect to the particular article specified in the appointment. All such appointments shall be in writing, and the original shall be filed in the customhouse of the district where made. All other persons exercising the powers hereinabove conferred may exercise the same at any place within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs. Sec. 2205. Exercise of Power of Seizure and Arrest. It shall be within the power of a customs official or person authorized as aforesaid, and it shall be his duty, to make seizure of any vessel, aircraft, cargo, articles, animal or other movable property when the same is subject to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws, and also to arrest any person subject to arrest for violation of any customs and tariff laws, such power to be exercised in conformity with the law and the provisions of this Code. Sec. 2206. Duty of Officer or Official to Disclose Official Character. It shall be the duty of any person exercising authority as aforesaid, upon being questioned at the time of the exercise thereof, to make known his official character as an officer or official of the Government, and if his authority is derived from special authorization in writing to exhibit the same for inspection, if demanded.
Sec. 2207. Authority to Require Assistance. Any person exercising police authority under the customs and tariff laws may demand assistance of any police officer when such assistance shall be necessary to effect any search, seizure or arrest which may be lawfully made or attempted by him. It shall be the duty of any police officer upon whom such requisition is made to give such lawful assistance in the matter as may be required. Sec. 2208. Right of Police Officer to Enter Inclosure. For the more effective discharge of his official duties, any person exercising the powers herein conferred, may at anytime enter, pass through, or search any land or inclosure or any warehouse, store or other building, not being a dwelling house. A warehouse, store or other building or inclosure used for the keeping of storage of articles does not become a dwelling house within the meaning hereof merely by reason of the fact that a person employed as watchman lives in the place, nor will the fact that his family stays there with him alter the case. Sec. 2209. Search of Dwelling House. A dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon warrant issued by a judge or justice of the peace, upon sworn application showing probable case and particularly describing the place to be searched and person or thing to be seized. Sec. 2210. Right to Search Vessels or Aircrafts and Persons or Articles Conveyed Therein. It shall be lawful for any official or person exercising police authority under the provisions of this Code to go abroad any vessel or aircraft within the limits of any collection to go aboard any vessel or aircraft within the limits of any collection district, and to inspect, search and examine said vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, box or envelope on board, and to search any person on board the said vessel or aircraft and to this end to hail and stop such vessel or aircraft if under way, to use all necessary force to compel compliance; and if it shall appear that any breach or violation of the customs and tariff laws of the Philippines has been committed, whereby or in consequence of which such vessels or aircrafts, or the article, or any part thereof, on board of or imported by such vessel or aircraft, is liable to forfeiture, to make seizure of the same or any part thereof. The power of search hereinabove given shall extend to the removal of any false bottom, partition, bulkhead or other obstruction, so far as may be necessary to enable the officer to discover whether any dutiable or forfeitable articles may be concealed therein. No proceeding herein shall give rise to any claim for the damage thereby caused to article or vessel or aircraft. Sec. 2211. Right to Search Vehicles, Beasts and Persons. It shall also be lawful for a person exercising authority as aforesaid to open and examine any box, trunk, envelope or other container, wherever found where he has reasonable cause to suspect the presence therein of dutiable or prohibited article or articles introduced into the Philippines contrary to law, and likewise to stop, search and examine any vehicle, beast or person reasonably suspected of holding or conveying such article as aforesaid. Sec. 2212. Search of Persons Arriving From Foreign Countries. All persons coming into the Philippines from foreign countries shall be liable to detention and search by the customs authorities under such regulations as may be prescribed relative thereto. Female inspectors may be employed for the examination and search of persons of their own sex.
2. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha

Sec. 2301. Warrant for Detention of Property Bond. Upon making any seizure, the Collector shall issue a warrant for the detention of the property; and if the owner or importer desires to secure the release of the property for legitimate use, the Collector may surrender it upon the filing of a sufficient bond, in an amount to be fixed by him, conditioned for the payment of the appraised value of the article and/or any fine, expenses and costs which may be adjudged in the case: Provided, That articles the importation of which is prohibited by law shall not be released under bond. Sec. 2302. Report of Seizure To Commissioner and Auditor. When a seizure is made for any cause, the Collector of the district wherein the seizure is effected shall immediately make report thereof to the Commissioner and to the Auditor General. Sec. 2303. Notification to Owner or Importer. The Collector shall give the owner or importer of the property or his agent a written notice of the seizure and shall give him an opportunity to be heard in reference to the delinquency which was the occasion of such seizure. For the purpose of giving such notice and of all other proceedings in the matter of such seizure, the importer, consignee or person holding the bill of lading shall be deemed to be the "owner" of the article included in the bill. For the same purpose, "agent" shall be deemed to include not only any agent in fact of the owner of the seized property but also any person having responsible possession of the property at the (missing) of the seizure, if the owner or his agent in fact is unknown or cannot be reached. Sec. 2304. Notification to Unknown Owner. Notice to an unknown owner shall be effected by posting a notice for fifteen days in the public corridor of the customhouse of the district in which the seizure was made, and, in the discretion of the Commissioner, by publication in a newspaper or by such other means as he shall consider desirable. Sec. 2305. Description and Appraisal and Classification of Seized Property. The Collector shall also cause a list and particular description of the property seized to be prepared and an appraisement or classification of the same at its wholesale value in the local market in the usual wholesale quantities to be made by at least two appraising officials, if there are such officials at or near the place of seizure; in the absence of such officials, then by two competent and disinterested citizens of the Philippines, to be selected by him for that purpose, residing at or near the place of seizure, which list and appraisement shall be properly attested to by such Collector and the persons making the appraisal. Sec. 2306. Proceedings in Case of Property Belonging to Unknown Parties. If, within fifteen days after the notification prescribed in section twenty-three hundred and four of this Code, no owner or agent can be found or appears before the Collector, the latter shall declare the property forfeited to the government to be sold at auction in accordance with law. Sec. 2307. Settlement of Case by Payment of Fine or Redemption of Forfeited Property. If, in any seizure case, the owner or agent shall, while the case is yet before the Collector of the district of seizure, pay to such Collector the fine imposed by him or, in case of forfeiture, shall pay the appraised value of the property, or, if after appeal of the case, he shall pay to the Commissioner the amount of the fine as finally determined by him, or, in case of forfeiture, shall pay the appraised value of the property, such property shall be forthwith surrendered, and all liability which may or might attach to the property by virtue of the offense which was the occasion of the seizure and all liability which might have been incurred under any bond given by the owner or agent in respect to such property shall thereupon be deemed to be discharged.
Redemption of forfeited property shall not be allowed in any case where the importation is absolutely prohibited or where the surrender of the property to the person offering to redeem the same would be contrary to law. Sec. 2308. Protest and Payment upon Protest in Civil Matters. When a ruling or decision of the Collector is made whereby liability for duties, fees, or other money charge is determined, except the fixing of fines in seizure cases, the party adversely affected may protest such ruling or decision by presenting to the Collector at the time when payment of the amount claimed to be due the Government is made, or within thirty days thereafter, a written protest setting forth his objections to the ruling or decision in question, together with the reasons therefor. No protest shall be considered unless payment of the amount due after final liquidation has first been made. Sec. 2309. Protest Exclusive Remedy in Protestable Case. In all cases subject to protest, the interested party who desires to have the action of the Collector reviewed, shall make a protest, otherwise, the action of the Collector shall be final and conclusive against him, except as to matters correctible for manifest error in the manner prescribed in section one thousand seven hundred and seven hereof. Sec. 2310. Form and Scope of Protest. Every protest shall be filed in accordance with the prescribed rules and regulations promulgated under this section and shall point out the particular decision or ruling of the Collector to which exception is taken or objection made, and shall indicate with reasonable precision the particular ground or grounds upon which the protesting party bases his claim for relief. The scope of a protest shall be limited to the subject matter of a single adjustment or other independent transaction; but any number of issue may be raised in a protest with reference to the particular item or items constituting the subject matter of the protest. "Single adjustment", as hereinabove used, refers to the entire content of one liquidation, including all duties, fees, surcharges or fines incident thereto. Sec. 2311. Samples to be Furnished by Protesting Parties. If the nature of the articles permit, importers filing protests involving questions of fact must, upon demand, supply the Collector with samples of the articles which are the subject matter of the protests. Such samples shall be verified by the custom official who made the classification against which the protest are filed. Sec. 2312. Decision or Action by Collector in Protest and Seizure Cases. When a protest in proper form is presented in a case where protest in required, the Collector shall reexamine the matter thus presented, and if the protest is sustained, in whole or in part, he shall enter the appropriate order, the entry reliquidated if necessary. In seizure cases, the Collector, after a hearing, shall in writing make a declaration of forfeiture or fix the amount of the fine or take such other action as may be proper. Sec. 2313. Review by Commissioner. The person aggrieved by the decision or action of the Collector in any matter presented upon protest or by his action in any case of seizure may, within fifteen days after notification in writing by the Collector of his action or decision, give written notice to the Collector of his desire to have the matter reviewed by the Commissioner. Thereupon the Collector shall forthwith transmit all the records of the proceedings to the Commissioner, who shall approve, modify or reverse the action or decision of the Collector and take such steps and make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to his decision.

Sec. 2314. Notice of Decision of Commissioner. Notice of the decision of the Commissioner shall be given to the party by whom the case was brought before him for review, and in seizure cases such notice shall be effected by personal service if practicable. Sec. 2315. Supervisory Authority of Commissioner And of Department Head in Certain Cases. If in any case involving the assessment of duties the importer shall fail to protest the ruling of the Collector, and the Commissioner shall be of the opinion that the ruling was erroneous and unfavorable to the Government, the latter may order a reliquidation; and if the ruling of the Commissioner in any unprotested case should, in the opinion of the department head, be erroneous and unfavorable to the Government, the department head may require the Commissioner to order a reliquidation. Except as in the preceding paragraph provided, the supervisory authority of the department head over the Bureau of Customs shall not extend to the administrative review of the ruling of the Commissioner in matters appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals. Customs Administrative Order No. 10-2007 (November 28, 2007): Rules and Regulations in the Conduct of Public Auction and Negotiated Sale [s1]: cover the disposition of articles under customs custody (Sec2601, TCCP) through public auction or negotiated sale [S2]: articles under customs custody shall be disposed through sale by public auction (UNLESS: special provision of law) [S3]: Floor Price in Auction Sale: not less than the wholesale value of the canvassed domestic wholesale price of the same, like or similar articles and in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade (determined by the concerned examiners/appraisers + subject to approval of the Chief, ACDD and District Collector) -not be less than the sum of the total landed cost based on the published/circularized VRIS-OCOM test value + taxes -take into consideration: obsolence + condition + reasonable depreciation [S4]: Notice of public auction: prepared by the Chief ACDD or ist equivalent unit -approved by the District Collector -contains: a. specific time, date and place for the auction sale b. Lot No. per sale lot; names of consignee c. specific description of goods d. floor price per sale lot e. specific date, time and place for the inspection of all the items/lots which shall be 2 days before auction date f. terms and conditions of the public auction [s5]: Submission of the Notice of Sale to the Commissioner for Monitoring Purposes: Chief, ACDD shall furnish the Commissioner of Customs a copy of the Notice and submit the ff: documents: inventory + certificate of finality of forfeiture/declaration of abandonment/order of the District Collector +certification from the assigned examiner/appraiser attesting that goods are perishable [s6]: publication and posting notice of sale [s7]: conditions for registration and participation in public bidding [s8]: Sealed bid system [s9] Clustering system: occurs when the difference between the highest and the second highest bid is within 10% of the highest bid. Opening bidding shall be conducted among the bidders of the particular sale lot who are present with the highest bid serving as new floor price [s10] awarding of sale [s11]failed bidding [s12] 2nd bidding [s13] negotiated sale [s14] mandatory reporting of the 2nd failed bidding [s15] committee on negotiated sale [s16] requirements and procedure in negotiated sale
3. COMPULSORY ACQUISITION CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 5-2001: IMPLEMENTING RA 9135: AN ACT AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF PD 1464 (TCC) AS AMENDED BYCUSTOMS ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 4-2004 (BUT I DONT HAVE A COPY OF THIS CAO)
Section 18 [S1] Objectives [s2] Dutiable Value II. Administrative provisions A. Reference Value as Risk Management Tool use custom value or any other value reference to establish doubt or alert Customs to do a value verification check B. Currency Conversion: rate of exchange shall be the duly published rates published by BSP + reflect as effectively as possible the current value of currency in commercial transactions C. Release under Sufficient Guarantee
V. Compulsory Acquisition -in order to protect the Governments revenues against undervaluation of goods subject to ad valorem duty Commissioner of Customs may acquire grossly undervalued goods for a price equal to the declared Customs value + any duties already paid on the goods -payment made within 10 working days from issuance of a warrant sighned by Commissioner for acquisition of goods GROSS UNDERVALUATION: when the discrepancy between the declared Customs value and any of the test values is 200% or higher: Difference between the test value and declared value/declared value x 100
B. JUDICIAL ACTION AGAINST THE TAXPAYER

Sec. 2401. Supervision and Control over Judicial Proceedings. In the absence of special provision, judicial action and proceedings instituted on behalf of the Government pursuant to the provisions of this Code shall be subject to the supervision and control of the Commissioner. Sec. 2402. Review by Court of Tax Appeals. The party aggrieved by a ruling of the Commissioner in any matter brought before him upon protest or by his action or ruling in any case of seizure may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals, in the manner and within the period prescribed by law and regulations. Unless an appeal is made to the Court of Tax Appeals in the manner and within the period prescribed by laws and regulations, the action or ruling of the Commissioner shall be final and conclusive.
C. POST ENTRY AUDIT

Sec. 3514. Requirement to Keep Records. - All importers are required to keep at their principal place of business, in the manner prescribed by regulations to be issued by the Commissioner of Customs and for a period three (3) years from the date of importation, all the records of their importations and/or books of accounts, business and computer systems and all customs commercial data including payment records relevant for the verification of the accuracy of the transaction value declared by the importers/customs brokers on the import entry.chan robles virtual law library All brokers are required to keep at their principal place of business, in the manner prescribed by regulations to be issued by the Commissioner of Customs and for a period of three (3) years from the date of importation copies of the above mentioned records covering transactions that they handle."

Section 3515. Compliance Audit or Examination of Records. - The importers/customs brokers shall allow any customs officer authorized by the Bureau of Customs to enter during office hours any premises or place where the records referred to in the preceding section are kept to conduct audit examination, inspection, verification and/or investigation of those records either in relation to specific transactions or to the adequacy and integrity of the manual or electronic system or systems by which such records are created and stored. For this purpose. A duty authorized customs officer shall be full and free access to all books, records, and documents necessary or relevant for the purpose of collecting the proper duties and taxes. In addition, the authorized customs officer may make copies of, or take extracts from any such documents. The records or documents must, as soon as practicable after copies of such have been taken, be returned to the person in charge of such documents. A copy of any such document certified by or on behalf of the importer/broker is admissible in evidence in all courts as if it were the original. An authorized customs officer is not entitled to enter any premises under this Section unless, before so doing, the officer produces to the person occupying or apparently in charge of the premises written evidence of the fact that he or she is an authorized officer. The person occupying or apparently in charge of the premises entered by an officer shall provide the officer with all reasonable facilities and assistance for the effective exercise of powers under this Section. Unless otherwise provided herein or in other provisions of law, the Bureau of Customs may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid of the proper regional trial court within whose jurisdiction the matter falls. The court may punish contumacy or refusal as contempt. In addition, the fact that the importer/broker denies the authorized customs officer full and free access to importation records during the conduct of a post-entry audit shall create a presumption of inaccuracy in the transaction value declared for their imported goods and constitute grounds for the Bureau of Customs to conduct a re-assessment of such goods. This is without prejudice to the criminal sanctions imposed by this Code and administrative sanctions that the Bureau of Customs may impose against contumacious importers under existing laws and regulations including the authority to hold delivery or release of their imported articles. Section 3516. Scope of the Audit. (a) The audit of importers shall be undertaken: (1) When firms are selected by a computer-aided risk management system, the parameters of which are to be based on objective and quantifiable data and are to be approved by the Secretary of Finance upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Customs. The criteria for selecting firms to be audited shall include, but not be limited to, the following: (a) Relative magnitude of customs revenue from the firm; (b) The rates of duties of the firm's imports; (c) The compliance tract records of the firm; and (d) An assessment of the risk to revenue of the firm's import activities. (2) When errors in the import declaration are detected; (3) When firms voluntarily request to be audited, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Customs. (b) Brokers shall be audited to validate audits of their importer clients and/or fill information gaps revealed during an audit of their importers clients. Section 3517. Documents in Foreign Language. - Where a document in a foreign language is presented to a customs officer in relation to the carrying out of any duty or the exercise of any power of the Bureau of Customs under this Code, said document in a foreign language must be accompanied with a translation in the official language of this country."
Sec. 3518. Records to Be Kept by Customs. The Bureau of Customs shall likewise keep a record of audit results in a database of importer and broker profiles, to include but not be limited to: (a) Articles of Incorporation; (b) The company structure, which shall include but not be limited to: (1) Incorporators and Board of Directors; (2) Key officers; andchan robles virtual law library (3) Organizational structure; (c) Key importations; (d) Privileges enjoyed; (e) Penalties; and (f) Risk category(ies).
CAO 5-2001 B. Compliance Audit 1. Importers/Customs broker shall allow any Customs officer authorized by the Commissioner of Customs to enter during office hours any premises or place where the records are kept to conduct audit, examination, inspection, verification and/or investigation of: a. document flow b. financial flow c. goods inventory d. other business processes Necessary/relevant in determining the adequacy and integrity of the manual/electronic system/s by which such records are created and stored and to ensure compliance with Customs laws and existing rules and regulations? 2. Authorized Customs officer may require importer and/or broker to make certified copies of any such documents/extracts -any record must be returned to custodian within 24 hours 3. copy of such document certified by/on behalf of the importer/broker: admissible in evidence in all courts as if it were original 4. authorized customs officer shall not enter any premises UNLESS before doing so, the officer produces to the person in charge of the premises the ff: a. duplicate original of the AUDIT NOTIFICATION LETTER b. official customs ID 5. Unless otherwise provided, the BOC may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid of the proper RTC w/n whose jurisdiction the matter falls 6. w/o prejudice to criminal sanctions imposed by laws and administrative sanctions that the BOC may impose against contumacious importers, including authority to hold delivery or release of their imported articles C. Scope of the Compliance Audit 1. Audit undertaken when: a. firms are selected by a computer-aided risk management system, parameters of which based on objective and quantifiable data which shall include (not exclusive): relative magnitude of customs revenue from the firm rates of duties of the firms imports

compliance track record of the firm assessment fo the risk to revenue of the firms import activities b. when errors in the import declaration are detected, if uncorrected would result in substantial revenue loss/grave distortion of relevant statistical data c. firms voluntary requests 2. Brokers shall be audited only to validate audits of their importers/ fill in information gaps revealed during audit of importer clients D. Conduct of Compliance Audit
Section 1206. Jurisdiction of Collector Over Importation of Articles -Collector shall: cause all articles entering the jurisdiction of his district and destined for importation through his port to be entered at the custom house cause all articles to be appraised and classified assess and collect duties, taxes and other charges theron hold possession of all imported articles upon which duties, taxes and other charges have not been paid or secured Section 1207. Jurisdiction of Collector Over Articles of Prohibited Importation -duty of collector to exercise such jurisdiction in respect thereto as will prevent importation or otherwise secure compliance with all legal requirements
Amendments CAO no. 2-2002

IV. Compliance Audit Operations Pending the creation of Post Entry Audit Office, the post entry audit system shall be initially handled by the interim Post Entry Audit Unit as defined under Customs Special Order No. 50-2001 PEA Process: A. Selecting Firms for Audit using Risk Management Approach: 2 types of audit 1. VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AUDIT: conducted under BOCs Compliance Program, developed to make compliant those firms that contribute up to 80% of customs revenue -voluntary -successful applicant firms shall be chosen using criteria that determine their respective risk levels -focus on determining whether the firms systems and procedures, particularly its inventory, financial and recordkeeping systems, all lead to the generation of compliant customs declarations 2. Enforced compliance audit: conducted on firms that are not included in the compliance program + have been found to have compliance issues -chosen from among those tagged for audit: a. by the collectors of customs as a result of VCRC review b. by TIRAU created under CSO 50-2001 as a result of its periodic analysis c. as a result of enforcement operations B. Profiling and Information Analysis a. gathering information by downloading customs data on the targeted importer, collating information from other sources both internally and externally b. profiling the companys activities on the basis of the captured data c. identifying risk shipments according to issues involved for verification purposes d. sampling of exception reports according to nature of variances e. reviewing of past decisions of BOC vis--vis the selected shipments f. preparing a report for the Commissioner to serve as basis for the grant of authority to serve as basis for the grant of authority to conduct field audit C. Audit Notification D. Audit Preparation/Audit Plan E. Pre-Audit Conference with Auditee F. Conduct of Audit Proper Field Audit G. Exit Conference H. Audit Reporting I. Audit Monitoring and Implementation
JAO V CA FACTS: The Office of the Director, Enforcement and Security Services (ESS), Bureau of Customs, received information regarding the presence of untaxed vehicles and parts in the premises owned by Pat Hao located along Quirino Avenue, Paranaque and Honduras St., Makati. After conducting a surveillance of the two places, respondent Major Jaime Maglipon, Chief of Operations and Intelligence of the ESS, recommended the issuance of warrants of seizure and detention. District Collector of Customs Titus Villanueva issued the warrants of seizure and detention. Maglipon coordinated with the local police to assist in the execution of the respective warrants of seizure and detention.The team searched the two premises. They were barred from entering the place, but some members of the team were able to force
themselves inside and were able to inspect the premises and noted that some articles were present which were not included in the list contained in the warrant . Amended warrants of seizure and detention were subsequently issued by Villanueva.
Consequently customs personnel started hauling the articles pursuant to the amended warrants. Narciso Jao and Bernardo Empeynado filed a case for Injunction and Damageswith prayer for Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction before RTC Makati Branch 56 on August 27, 1990 against respondents. On the same date, the trial court issued a Temporary Restraining Order. Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that RTC has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, claiming that it was the Bureau of Customs that had exclusive jurisdiction over it. RTC denied motion to dismiss. Respondents filed MFR . MFR was denied. CA set aside the questioned orders of the trial court and enjoined it from further proceeding with the Case. The appellate court also dismissed the said civil case.
D. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs over importation of Artiles

ISSUE: WON the RTC has jurisdiction over cases questioning the validity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Bureau of Customs HELD: The RTC is devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity or regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Bureau of Customs and to enjoin or otherwise interfere with these proceedings .The Collector of Customs sitting in seizure and forfeiture proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions touching on the seizure and forfeiture of dutiable goods. The Regional Trial Courts are precluded from assuming cognizance over such matters even through petitions of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus. It is likewise well-settled that the provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code and RA 1125 "An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals," specify the proper fora and procedure for the ventilation of any legal objections or issues raised concerning these proceedings. Actions of the Collector of Customs are appealable to the Commissioner of Customs, whose decision, in turn, is subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals and from there to the Court of Appeals. The rule that Regional Trial Courts have no review powers over such proceedings is anchored upon the policy of placing no unnecessary hindrance on the government's drive, not only to prevent smuggling and other frauds upon Customs, but more importantly, to render effective and efficient the collection of import and export duties due the State, which enables the government to carry out the functions it has been instituted to perform. The illegality of a seizure by the Collector of Customs does not deprive the Bureau of Customs of jurisdiction thereon. The allegations of petitioners regarding the propriety of the seizure should properly be ventilated before the Collector of Customs. We have had occasion to declare: The Collector of Customs when sitting in forfeiture proceedings constitutes a tribunal expressly vested by law with jurisdiction to hear and determine the subject matter of such proceedings without any interference from the Court of First Instance. (Auyong Hian v. Court of Tax Appeals, et al., 19 SCRA 10). ENRILE vs VINUYA NATURE Certiorari and prohibition proceeding
FACTS - The then Collector of Customs of the Port of Manila issued a warrant of seizure and detention against the Cadillac car involved in this case, the owner-claimant being a certain Rodolfo Ceza, as the taxes and duties had not been paid.lh/CITE> The warr - It was moreover shown in the petition that the owner, Rodolfo Ceza, had sold such car to one Francisco Dee from whom respondent Vinuya acquired the same. - Vinuya filed a complaint for replevin in the sala of respondent Judge on the ground of alleged illegality of the seizure which, in the opinion of respondents, did not confer jurisdiction on the Collector of Customs. - Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that forfeiture proceedings had already been instituted before the Collector of Customs who has the sole jurisdiction to determine questions affecting the disposition of property under seizure as well as the absence of a cause of action. This was denied for lack of merit. Thus this petition. ISSUE WON the court of first instance is vested with jurisdiction to entertain a complaint for replevin for the recovery of a Cadillac car, subject of a seizure and forfeiture proceeding in the Bureau of Customs HELD NO. The prevailing doctrine is that the exclusive jurisdiction in seizure and forfeiture cases vested in the Collector of Customs precludes a court of first instance from assuming cognizance over such a matter. This has been so, as noted, since Pacis v. Averia. Reasoning a. The existence of the power and the regularity of the proceeding taken under it are distinct from each other. The governmental agency concerned, the Bureau of Customs, is vested with exclusive authority. Even if it be assumed that in the exercise of such exclusive competence a taint of illegality may be correctly imputed, the most that can be said is that under certain circumstances the grave abuse of discretion conferred may oust it of such jurisdiction. It does not mean however that correspondingly a court of first instance is vested with competence when clearly in the light of the above decisions the law has not seen fit to do so.lh/CIJFOAJOJbefore th b. "the Court of First Instance should yield to the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs. The jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs is provided for in Republic Act

1937 which took effect on July 1, 1957, much later than the Judiciary Act of 1948. It is axiomatic that a later law prevails over a prior statute. c. Moreover, on grounds of public policy, it is more reasonable to conclude that the legislators intended to divest the Court of First Instance of the prerogative to replevin a property which is a subject of a seizure and forfeiture proceedings for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code. Otherwise, actions for forfeiture of property for violation of Customs laws could easily be undermined by the simple devise of replevin." d. Section 2303 of the Tariff and Customs Code requires the Collector of Customs to give to the owner of the property sought to be forfeited written notice of the seizure and to give him the opportunity to be heard in his defense. This provision clearly indicates the intention of the law to confine in the Bureau of Customs the determination of all questions affecting the disposal of property proceeded against in a seizure and forfeiture case. The judicial recourse of the property owner is not in the Court of First Instance but in the Court of Tax Appeals, and only after exhausting administrative remedies in the Bureau of Customs." e Collector of Customs is not final. An appeal lies to the DISPOSITION The writ of certiorari prayed for is granted, respondent Judge being clearly without jurisdiction. ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. V RICAFORT ET AL FACTS -Section 1, RA No. 8506 provides that it shall be unlawful for any person to import, cause the importation of, register, cause the registration of, use or operate righthand drive vehicles -Noel Tabuelog et al are duly-licensed importers of vehicles, who, between April and May 1998, imported 72 secondhand right-hand drive buses -When the shipment arrived at the Port of Manila, the District Collector of Customs impounded the vehicles and ordered them stored at the warehouse of the Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI) -Conformably with Section 2607 of the Tariff and Customs Code, the District Collector of Customs issued Warrants of Distraint against the shipment and set the sale at public auction -On October 28, 1998, the Secretary of Justice rendered an opinion stating that shipments of right hand wheel vehicles loaded and exported at the port of origin before February 22, 1998 were not covered by RA No. 8506 unless the same were loaded and imported after said date. -On November 11, 1998, the importers, filed a complaint with the RTC of Paraaque
City, against the Secretary of Finance, Customs Commissioner, et al for replevin -The RTC granted the application for a writ of replevin on a bond of P12,000,000.00. -The Chief of Customs Police and four (4) customs policemen prevented the Sheriff and the policemen assisting him from taking custody of the vehicles, claiming that the District Collector of Customs had jurisdiction over the vehicles. -On motion of the plaintiffs, the court issued an order directing the PNP Director to assist the Sheriff in implementing the writ it issued -The District Collector of Customs agreed to transfer the custody of the vehicles to the RTC, on the condition that the required taxes, dues, and other charges be paid. -On November 27, 1998, the defendants, through the OSG, filed a motion seeking the reconsideration of the RTC Order on the ground that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the vehicles subject of seizure and detention before the Bureau of Customs. The ATI filed a motion for the court to allow the vehicles to remain in its warehouse. -On December 1, 1998, the ATI filed a Third-Party Claim over the shipment, alleging that it had a lien over the vehicles for accumulated and unpaid storage and arrastre charges, and wharfage dues -Before the court could resolve the motions, plaintiffs filed a "Motion/Notice to Dismiss/Withdraw Complaint" against the defendants on the ground that they had agreed to the implementation of the writ of replevin -ATI filed a Motion for Intervention and for Admission of its Complaint-inIntervention, alleging that it had a lien on the vehicles for accumulated storage and arrastre charges and wharfage dues. -On April 27, 1999, the court issued an Order dismissing the complaint -The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration. For its part, ATI filed a motion for clarification of the order, and also pleaded for the court to admit its Complaint-inIntervention -On September 23, 1999, the RTC issued its Order dismissing the Complaint-inIntervention -ATI filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied on July 31, 2000. -ATI filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA -On November 30, 2004, the CA rendered judgment dismissing the petition for lack of merit. The appellate court ruled that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the complaint filed by respondents, since the Collector of Customs sitting in seizure and forfeiture proceedings had the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions relating on the seizure and forfeiture of dutiable goods. Since the RTC had no jurisdiction over the main case, it was also bereft of authority to hear the third-party claim or the complaint-in-intervention filed by ATI. -ATI filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied, hence, this petition ISSUE WON the lower courts erred in dismissing ATI's petition

HELD No. -Section 602 of the TCC provides that the Bureau of Customs shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over seized and forfeited cars. It is tasked to enforce tariff, and supervise and control customs law and all other laws, rules and regulations relating to the tariff and customs administration; and to supervise and control all import and export cargoes, loaded or stored in piers, terminal facilities, including container yards and freight stations, for the protection of government revenues. Under Section 2301 of the TCC, the Collector of Customs is empowered to make a seizure of cargoes and issue a receipt for the detention thereof -Section 2530. Property Subject of Forfeiture Under Tariff and Customs Laws. Any vehicle, vessel or aircraft, cargo, article and objects shall, under the following conditions be subject to forfeiture: (f) Any article the importation or exportation of which is effected or attempted contrary to law, or any article of prohibited importation or exportation, and all other articles which, in the opinion of the Collector, have been used, are or were entered to be used as instruments in the importation or exportation of the former. -In Jao v. Court of Appeals, it was held that the Regional Trial Courts are devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity or regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Bureau of Customs and to enjoin or otherwise interfere with these proceedings. It is the Collector of Customs, sitting in seizure and forfeiture proceedings, who has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions touching on the seizure and forfeiture of dutiable goods. Actions of the Collector of Customs are appealable to the Commissioner of Customs, whose decision, in turn, is subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals and from there to the Court of Appeals. -The rule that Regional Trial Courts have no review powers over such proceedings is anchored upon the policy of placing no unnecessary hindrance on the governments drive, not only to prevent smuggling and other frauds upon Customs, but more importantly, to render effective and efficient the collection of import and export duties due the State, which enables the government to carry out the functions it has been instituted to perform. -The RTC had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition for replevin by respondents herein, issue the writ of replevin and order its enforcement. The RTC should have dismissed the petition for replevin at the outset. -While it is true that the District Collector of Customs allowed the release of the vehicles and the transfer thereof to the custody of the RTC upon the payment by the private respondents of the required taxes, duties and charges, he did not thereby lose jurisdiction over the vehicles; neither did it vest jurisdiction on the RTC to take cognizance of and assume jurisdiction over the petition for replevin. -The RTC cannot be faulted for dismissing petitioners complaint-in-intervention. Considering that it had no jurisdiction over respondents action and over the shipment subject of the complaint, all proceedings before it would be void. The RTC had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint-in-intervention and act thereon except to dismiss the same. Moreover, considering that intervention is merely ancillary and supplemental to the existing litigation and never an independent action, the dismissal of the principal action necessarily results in the dismissal of the complaint-in-intervention. Likewise, a court which has no jurisdiction over the principal action has no jurisdiction over a complaint-in-intervention.
Section 44(c) of the Judiciary Act of 1948 lodges in the Court of First Instance original jurisdiction in all cases in which the value of the property in controversy amounts to more than ten thousand pesos. This original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, when exercised in an action for recovery of personal property which is a subject of a forfeiture proceeding in the Bureau of Customs, tends to encroach upon, and to render futile, the jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs in seizure and forfeiture proceedings. This is precisely what took place in this case.lh
1
BOAC V PEOPLE NATURE Appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 FACTS - Raul Basilio Boac, Ramon Betuin Golong, Cesar Fantone Beltran, Roger Alcantara Basadre, and Benjamin Castaneda Alfonso are members of the PNP-CIDG. - They were charged with violation of Sec. 2203 in relation to Sec. 3612 of the Tariff and Customs Code in that without lawful authority or delegation from the Collector of Customs, they flagged down, searched and seized three (3) container vans consigned to Japan Trak surplus (Kakiage Surplus). - Atty. Lourdes V. Mangaoang, then Customs District Collector of Cagayan de Oro City, testified that the CIDG operatives (herein petitioners) did not have a written authority from the Commissioner of Customs or the District Collector. According to her, Golong claimed that they had clear orders from Boac to open and search the vans. She instructed her personnel to open the vans only to show that there was nothing illegal in their contents. She prepared a letter of protest addressed to Boac but it was ignored; hence, she filed the instant case. - For the defense, Boac testified that on July 27, 2004, he was in Manila on leave. Beltran allegedly informed him that three container vans with contrabands were released by the BOC; thus, Boac instructed Golong and his team to flag down the subject vans. After the inspection of the vans and without finding any contraband,

Boac directed Golong to leave the premises. - The Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioners. The anti-graft court ruled that petitioners belong to the category of officers in Sec. 2203(d); thus, they needed a written authority from the Commissioner of Customs or District Collector in order to conduct searches, seizures and arrests. In this case, the court said, the prosecution established the lack of said written authority; even Beltran and Golong admitted that they did not have any authorization to search the vans. - Petitioners assert that they did not conduct any search, seizure, or arrest; hence, there was no violation of the Tariff and Customs Code. During the search conducted in the consignees warehouse on July 28, 2004, the employees of the owner of the shipment unloaded the goods under BOC personnel supervision. Petitioners allege that they only witnessed the search; they did not make any seizures or arrests. After searching the first van and half of the second van without any contraband being found, Customs Police Yamit and Godoy decided to stop the search despite the request of petitioners to continue. Since the Customs Police were already leaving the area, Boac instructed his team to leave the vicinity. - Petitioners further claim that the polices authority to stop, search, and effect seizure and arrest, if necessary, is no longer exclusively vested on the Collector of Customs. Regular PNP members are generally empowered by law to effect arrests in accordance with Republic Act No. (RA) 6975. - Petitioners contend that they were investigating a possible connivance of smugglers with some corrupt customs personnel. They maintained that their act of flagging down the container vans was not connected with the enforcement of the tariff and customs laws, smuggling being a form of economic sabotage which is within the powers of the PNP-CIDG to monitor and investigate. Thus, according to them, no prior authority from the Collector of Customs is required in performing their duties as police officers. Besides, they said they immediately coordinated with the Customs Police for the latter to conduct the actual search of the container vans; hence, there was no violation of Sec. 2203. ISSUE WON petitioners are guilty of the crime charged HELD NO
- It should be noted that the container vans were brought to the consignees warehouse and not to the CIDG headquarters. On July 28, 2004, the container vans were searched but not by petitioners. The search was actually conducted by Customs Police Yamit and Godoy on July 28, 2004. The Customs Police held the keys of the vans. Furthermore, the vans were opened without the presence of the PNPCIDGs team leader, Inspector Golong. The search was under the direction of the Customs Police because when the Customs Police decided to stop the search, petitioners acceded and left the premises. - The foregoing testimony, which Golong corroborated, was not disputed by the prosecution. It is thus very clear that the search was not done by petitioners but by the Customs Police. Petitioners did not seize anything nor arrested anybody. They merely observed the search which they requested to be undertaken to check for contrabands. Notably, the consignee did not file any complaint against petitioners. - The information charged petitioners for illegally flagging down, searching, and seizing the three container vans on July 27, 2004. Petitioners, however, could not also be held liable for these acts. It is a fact that no search and seizure of the vans was done on the night of July 27, 2004. The act of flagging down the vehicles is not among those proscribed by Sec. 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code. Mere flagging down of the container vans is not punishable under the said law. - As regards the second issue, there is no conflict between the aforequoted provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code and RA 6975, as amended. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs is clearly with regard to customs duties. Should the PNP suspect anything, it should coordinate with the BOC and obtain the written authority from the Collector of Customs in order to conduct searches, seizures, or arrests.
Disposition Decision reversed and set aside.

II. REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE TAXPAYER
Sec. 2308. Protest and Payment upon Protest in Civil Matters. When a ruling or decision of the Collector is made whereby liability for duties, fees, or other money charge is determined, except the fixing of fines in seizure cases, the party adversely affected may protest such ruling or decision by presenting to the Collector at the time when payment of the amount claimed to be due the Government is made, or within thirty days thereafter, a written protest setting forth his objections to the ruling or decision in question, together with the reasons therefor. No protest shall be considered unless payment of the amount due after final liquidation has first been made. Sec. 2309. Protest Exclusive Remedy in Protestable Case. In all cases subject to protest, the interested party who desires to have the action of the Collector reviewed, shall make a protest, otherwise, the action of the Collector shall be final and conclusive against him, except as to matters correctible for manifest error in the manner prescribed in section one thousand seven hundred and seven hereof.
Reasoning - Petitioners should be acquitted of the charge. The prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, it is clear that petitioners neither searched the container vans nor effected seizure and arrest.

Sec. 2310. Form and Scope of Protest. Every protest shall be filed in accordance with the prescribed rules and regulations promulgated under this section and shall point out the particular decision or ruling of the Collector to which exception is taken or objection made, and shall indicate with reasonable precision the particular ground or grounds upon which the protesting party bases his claim for relief. The scope of a protest shall be limited to the subject matter of a single adjustment or other independent transaction; but any number of issue may be raised in a protest with reference to the particular item or items constituting the subject matter of the protest. "Single adjustment", as hereinabove used, refers to the entire content of one liquidation, including all duties, fees, surcharges or fines incident thereto. chan robles virtual law library Sec. 2311. Samples to be Furnished by Protesting Parties. If the nature of the articles permit, importers filing protests involving questions of fact must, upon demand, supply the Collector with samples of the articles which are the subject matter of the protests. Such samples shall be verified by the custom official who made the classification against which the protest are filed. Sec. 2312. Decision or Action by Collector in Protest and Seizure Cases. When a protest in proper form is presented in a case where protest in required, the Collector shall reexamine the matter thus presented, and if the protest is sustained, in whole or in part, he shall enter the appropriate order, the entry reliquidated if necessary. In seizure cases, the Collector, after a hearing, shall in writing make a declaration of forfeiture or fix the amount of the fine or take such other action as may be proper. CAO No. 3-2002: Amendment of CMO 27-99 on the Procedure in Protest Cases Against the Determination of Customs Value and Tariff Classification of Imported Goods Under the WTO Valuation Regime I. Objective: provide clear and transparent procedures for the resolution of formal protest cases arising from valuation and classification issues resolved by the Valuation and Classification Review Committee (VCRC) pursuant to CMO on New Cargo Clearance Procedure II. Procedural Flow Collector of Customs 1. upon final determination of the Customs Value and/or the tariff classification by the VCRC, importer adversely affected may file a formal protest with the OFFICE OF THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS through the LAW DIVISION of the port concerned or its equivalent unit in order to dispute the assessment at the time when payment of the amount claimed to be due the government is made Or within 15 days thereafter 2. importer shall state: reasons for protest pay docket fees rate fixed by CAO No. 1-96A 3. Collector form panel of experts to hear the case: hearing officer from law division + COO V and COO III from assessment unit 4. Collector ensure that those involved in the initial assessment shall not be chosen as members of the experts panel 5. panel shall hear all parties: authorized to issue necessary notice of hearings, subpoenas and other interlocutory orders, receive evidence 6. panel terminate proceedings, recommend decision to the Collector of Customs for approval within 30 d from the 1st hearing
10
7. protest cannot be resolved for meritorious reason within 30d: panel shall request additional time not exceeding 30d within which to resolve case 8. Collector render FINAL decision within 15 days from receipt of recommended decision + shall notify importer in writing of deci 9. Collector renders deci ADVERSE TO GOVERNMENT: deci + entire records of the case = automatically elevated to Commissioner for AUTOMATIC REVIEW within 5 days from promulgation 10. If importer not satisfied with Collectors deci (ADVERSE TO IMPORTER): notice of appeal with collector within 15 days after notification in writing by Collector with a copy of the notice furnished to the Commissioner of Customs 11. Collector shall immediately transfer all the records of the protest + assailed deci to Commissioner Commissioner shall approve/modify/reverse the action or deci of Collector take steps and make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to his deci COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 12. Appeal to Commissioner of Customs: perfected upon a. filing of notice of appeals b. payment of appeal docket fee in accordance with prescribed rates c. Memorandum of appeal at option of appellant (within 15 days from receipt of notice of deci) 13. Appeal (regular/ automatic): Deliberated on by a permanent board of 3 created by Commissioner board: chaired by lawyer from the appellate division, Mems: legal service and 2 valuation experts from import and assessment service 14. board shall recommend deci of Commissioner through proper channels 15. Commissioner shall render a decision w/n 30 d from receipt of the records of the case from the Collector shall noticy the appellant/aggrieved party in writing 16. w/n 30d from receipt of the record of the case: no decision by Commissioner is rendered = deemed that Commissioner upheld the Collectors decision if deci adverse to govt: case shall likewise be elevated to SoF for automatic review 17. Commissioner decides in favor of Govt + no appeal perfected w/n reglementary period w/CTA = deci of Commissioner shall become final and executory SECRETARY OF FINANCE 18. Commissioner renders a decision adverse to govt: elevated to SoF for automatic review + records of proceedings forwarded to SoF w/n 5d from promulgation of decision 19.w/n 30d from receipt of the record of the case by SoF no deci rendered: deci under review FINAL AND EXECUTORY 20. DECI OF SOF: final and executory if no appeal to CTA COURT OF TAX APPEALS 21. Importer not satisfied with Commissioner of Customs/SoF deci: file an appeal with CTA w/n30d from receipt of a notice of such deci
2. SEIZURE/FORFEITURE CASES
SEC. 2530. Property Subject to Forfeiture Under Tariff and Customs Laws. - Any vehicle, vessel or aircraft, cargo, article and other objects shall, under the following conditions be subjected to forfeiture: a. Any vehicle, vessel or aircraft, including cargo, which shall be used unlawfully in the importation or exportation of articles or in conveying and/or transporting contraband or smuggled articles in commercial quantities into or from any Philippine port or place. The mere carrying or holding on board of contraband or smuggled articles in commercial quantities shall subject such vessel, vehicle, aircraft, or any other craft to forfeiture: Provided, That the vessel, or aircraft or any other craft is not used as duly authorized common carrier and as such a carrier it is not chartered or leased;

b. Any vessel engaging in the coastwise which shall have on board any article of foreign growth, produce, or manufacture in excess of the amount necessary for sea stores, without such article having been properly entered or legally imported; c. Any vessel or aircraft into which shall be transferred cargo unladen contrary to law prior to the arrival of the importing vessel or aircraft at her port of destination; d. Any part of the cargo, stores or supplies of a vessel or aircraft arriving from a foreign port which is unladen before arrival at the vessel's or aircraft's port of destination and without authority from the customs officials; but such cargo, ship or aircraft stores and supplies shall not be forfeited if such unlading was due to accident, stress of weather or other necessity and is subsequently approved by the Collector; e. Any article which is fraudulently concealed in or removed contrary to law from any public or private warehouse, container yard or container freight station under customs supervision; f. Any article the importation or exportation of which is effected or attempted contrary to law, or any article of prohibited importation or exportation, and all other articles which, in the opinion of the Collector, have been used, are or were entered to be used as instruments in the importation or the exportation of the former; g. Unmanifested article found on any vessel or aircraft if manifest therefore is required; h. Sea stores or aircraft stores adjudged by the Collector to be excessive, when the duties assessed by the Collector thereon are not paid or secured forthwith upon assessment of the same, i. Any package of imported article which is found by the examining official to contain any article not specified in the invoice or entry, including all other packages purportedly containing imported articles similar to those declared in the invoice or entry to be. the contents of the misdeclared package; Provided, That the Collector is of the opinion that the misdeclaration was contrary to law; j. Boxes, cases, trunks, envelopes and other containers of whatever character used as receptacle or as device to conceal article which is itself subject to forfeiture under the tariff and customs laws or which is so designed as to conceal the character of such articles; k. Any conveyance actually being used for the transport of articles subject to forfeiture under the tariff and customs laws, with its equipage or trappings, and any vehicle similarly used, together with its equipage and appurtenances including the beast steam or other motive power drawing or propelling the same. The mere conveyance of contraband or smuggled articles by such beast or vehicle shall be sufficient cause for the outright seizure and confiscation of such beast or vehicle but the forfeiture shall not be effected if it is established that the owner of the means of conveyance used as aforesaid, is engaged as common carrier and not chartered or leased, or his agent in charge thereof at the time, has no knowledge of the unlawful act; 1. Any article sought to be imported or exported (1) Without going through a customhouse, whether the act was consummated, frustrated or attempted; (2) By failure to mention to a customs official, articles found in the baggage of a person arriving from abroad; (3) On the strength of a false declaration or affidavit executed by the owner, importer, exporter or consignee concerning the importation of such article; (4) On the strength of a false invoice or other document executed by the owner, importer, exporter or consignee concerning the importation or exportation of such article; and (5) Through any other practice or device contrary to law by means of which such articles was entered through a customhouse to the prejudice of the government. SEC. 2531. Properties Not Subject to Forfeiture in the Absence of Prima Facie Evidence. The forfeiture of the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft shall hot be effected if it is established that the owner thereof or his agent in charge of the means of conveyance used as aforesaid has no knowledge of or participation in the unlawful act: Provided, however, That a prima facie presumption shall exist against the vessel, vehicle or aircraft under any of the following circumstances: 1. If the conveyance has been used for smuggling at least twice before; 2. If the owner is not in the business for which the conveyance is generally used; and 3. If the owner is not financially in a position to own such conveyance.
11
SEC. 2532. Conditions Affecting Forfeiture of Article. - As regards imported or exported article or articles whereof the importation or exportation is merely attempted, the forfeiture shall be effected only when and while the article is in the custody or within the jurisdiction of the customs authorities or in the hands or subject to the control of the importer, exporter, original owner, consignee, agent of other person effecting the importation, entry or exportation in question, or in the hands or subject to the control of some persons who shall receive, conceal, buy, sell or transport the same or aid in any such acts, with knowledge that the article was imported, or was the subject of an attempt at importation or exportation, contrary to law. SEC. 2533. Enforcement of Lien, Administrative Fines, and Forfeitures. - Administrative fines and forfeitures shall be enforced by the seizure of the vehicle, vessel or aircraft or other property subject to the fine or forfeiture and by subsequent proceedings in conformity with the provisions of Parts 2 and 3, Title VI, Book 11, of this Code. For the purpose of enforcing the lien for customs duties, fees and other charges on any seized or confiscated article in the custody of the Bureau of Internal Revenue., the Bureau of Internal Revenue is hereby authorized to impose and enforce the said lien. SEC. 2534. Seizure of Vessel or Aircraft for Delinquency of Owner or Officer. - When the owner, .agent, master, pilot in command or other responsible officer of any vessel or aircraft becomes liable to be fined under the tariff and customs laws on account of a delinquency in the discharge of a duty imposed upon him with reference to the said vessel or aircraft, the vessel or aircraft itself may be seized and subjected in an administrative proceeding for the satisfaction of the fine for which such person would have been liable. SEC. 2535. Burden of Proof in Seizure and/or Forfeiture. - In all proceedings taken for the seizure and/or forfeiture of any vessel, vehicle, aircraft, beast or articles under the provisions of the tariff and customs laws, the burden of proof shall lie upon the claimant: Provided, That probable cause shall be first shown for the institution of such proceedings and that seizure and/or forfeiture was made under the circumstances and in the manner described in the preceding sections of this Code. SEC. 2536. Seizure of Other Articles. - The Commissioner of Customs and Collector of Customs any other customs officer, with the prior authorization in writing by the Commissioner, may demand evidence of payment of duties and taxes on foreign articles openly offered for sale or kept in storage, and if no such evidence can be produced, such articles may be seized and subjected to forfeiture proceedings: , however, That during such proceedings the person or entity for whom such articles have been shall be given the opportunity to prove or show the source of such articles and the payment of duties and taxes thereon. CAO No. 9-93: Rules and Regulations Governing the Issuance of Warrants of Seizure and Detention, the Conduct of Seizure Proceedings and Procedure in Appeals to the Commissioner of Customs and to the Secretary of Finance Title I Title and Construction Title II General Provisions [Sec3] Collector of Customs upon making any seizure shall issue a warrant for the detention of the property [Sec4] Owner/importer desires to secure the release of the property under seizure for legitimate use, Collector of Customs shall surrender it upon filling of a sufficient cash bond in an amount to be fixed by the Collector of Customs, subject to the following conditions: a. amount of cash bond shall not in any case be less than the appraised value of the article plus fine, expenses and costs that may be adjudged in the case. APPRAISED VALUE: dutiable value of article + duties, taxes, and other customs charges b. no prima facie evidence of fraud attendant to importation c. not prohibited importation d. release under cash bond approved by the Commissioner [Sec5] release of property under cash bond: SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE OWNER OR IMPORTER of the goods from CRIMINAL LIABILITY arising from the importation/exportation of the shipment

Title III Grounds for the issuance of warrant of seizure and detention proceedings before hearing officers [Sec6] probable cause that articles were imported/exported contrary to TCC: the Collector of Customs shall issue a Warrant of Seizure and Detention in Customs [Sec7] Formal Hearing: uncontroverted facts shall be stipulated on and issues to be heard shall be agreed upon in order to abbreviate the proceedings determine WON there is a violation of law District Collector of Customs shall render deci Title IV Review by Commissioner [Sec8] Appeal: person/party aggrieved by the decision/action of Collector in any case of SEIZURE may file a written notice to Collector of Customs w/n 15d after receipt of the notice in writing of action/decision of the Collector of Customs copy furnished with Commissioner of Customs of intention to appeal upon perfection of appeal: Collector shall immediately transmit all the records of the proceedings to Commissioner Appeal filed beyond 15d: deemed dismissed Commissioner shall approve/modify/reverse the Collector of Customs deci/action + take such steps and make appropriate orders [Sec9] Automatic Review by the Commissioner on Action or Decision of the Collector of Customs adverse to government records of the case: elevated w/n 5 days from promulgation of deci of collector of customs from receipt of the records of the case: Commissioner render deci on automatic review w/n 30d deci of Commissioner REVERSING THE ADVERSE DECI of Collector, on automatic review, shall be FINAL AND EXECUTORY [Sec10] Commissioner AFFIRMS Adverse decision of Collector: records of the proceedings shall be elevated to SoF w/n 5d from promulgation of the deci by Commissioner Commissioner fails to render a deci on automatic review w/n 30d from receipt of records: deemed automatically appealed to SoF; records of the proceedings shall be elevated by Commissioner to the SoF w/n 5d after the lapse of 30d adverse deci of Collector AFFRIMED by SoF: affirmed deci final and executory value of the imported article under seizure: P5k+: adverse deci of Collector deemed automatically appealed to SoF w/n 30d from receipt of the records of the proceedings by SoF, no deci is rendered by him: Commissioner/Collectors deci under appeal shall be final and executory [Sec11] deci of Collector on the merits which fully or partially releases the shipment under seizure = adverse decision subject to automatic review [Sec12] seizure proceeding: release of imported articles shall not be allowed unless and until a decision of the Collector has been affirmed in writing by the commissioner
12
filed a criminal complaint for usurpation of judicial functions with the City Fiscal of Manila handled by Pamaran. Issue WON the Collector of Customs has the authority to issue the warrant of seizure Held Yes, as Acting Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila, he had the requisite authority for the issuance of the contested warrant of seizure and detention for the automobile owned by respondent Ricardo Santos. It is to be admitted that the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure must not be eroded or emasculated. The right to privacy so highly valued in civilized society must not be diluted. Only upon compliance then with the proper requisites mandated by law should one's possessions be subject to seizure. That much is clear. Under the 1935 Constitution the intervention of a judge was well-nigh indispensable. So it was under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of 1916. Even then, however, as shown by the leading case of Uy Kheytin v. Villareal, a 1920 decision, it was the accepted principle following the landmark case of Boyd v. United States that the seizure of goods concealed to avoid the duties on them is not embraced within the prohibition of this constitutional guarantee. More to the point. In a recent decision of this Court, Papa v. Mago, where the seizure of alleged smuggled goods was effected by a police officer without a search warrant, this Court, through Justice Zaldivar, stated: "Petitioner Martin Alagao and his companion policemen had authority to effect the seizure without any search warrant issued by a component court. The Tariff and Customs Code does not require said warrant in the instant case. The Code authorizes persons having police authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass through or search any land, inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a dwelling house; and also to inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, box or envelope or any person on board, or stop and search and examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law, without mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases. But in the search of a dwelling house, the Code provides that said 'dwelling house may be entered and searched only upon warrant issued by a judge or justice of the peace . . . .' It is our considered view, therefore, that except in the case of the search of a dwelling house, persons exercising police authority under the customs law may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws." The plenitude of the competence vested in customs officials is thus undeniable. No such constitutional question then can possibly arise. So much is implicit from the very language of Section 2205 of the Tariff and Customs Code. It speaks for itself. It is not susceptible of any misinterpretation. The power of petitioner is thus manifest. It being undeniable then that the sole basis for an alleged criminal act performed by him
Pacis v. Pamaran Facts Pacis is the Acting Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila. The case is prohibition proceeding against Assistant City Fiscal of Manila, Manuel R. Pamaran. Respondent Ricardo Santos is the owner of a Mercury automobile, model 1957. It was brought into this country without the payment of customs duty and taxes, its owner Donald James Hatch being tax-exempt. It was from him that respondent Santos acquired said car. He paid P311.00 for customs duty and taxes. Land Transportation Commission reported that such automobile was a "hot car." By virtue thereof, petitioner Pacis, ascertained that although the amount of P311.00 was already paid for customs duty, the amount collectible on said car should be P2,500.00, more or less. Pacis instituted seizure proceedings and issued a warrant of seizure and detention. Ricardo Santos

was the performance of a duty according to law, there is not the slightest justification for respondent Assistant City Fiscal to continue with the preliminary investigation after his attention was duly called to the plain and explicit legal provision that did not suffer at all from any constitutional infirmity. The remedy of prohibition lies. What was done by petitioner was strictly in accordance with settled principles of law. No doubt need be entertained then as to the validity of the issuance of the warrant of seizure and detention. His liability for any alleged usurpation of judicial function is non-existent. Such imputation was definitely unfounded. Even if however the matter were less clear, the claim that the search and seizure clause was in effect nullified is hardly impressed with merit. Considering that what is involved is an alleged evasion of the payment of customs duties. Disposition WHEREFORE, the writ of prohibition prayed for is granted and the successor of respondent Manuel R. Pamaran, now a criminal circuit court judge, or any one in the City Fiscal's Office of the City of Manila to whom the complaint against petitioner for usurpation of judicial functions arising out of the issuance of the warrant of seizure and detention, subject-matter of this litigation, has been assigned, is perpetually restrained from acting thereon except to dismiss the same. No costs. 3. REVIEW OF PROTEST/SEIZURE CASES BY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS/SECRETARY OF FINANCE A. REVIEW UPON REQUEST OF TAXPAYER
SEC. 2309. Protest Exclusive Remedy in Protestable, Case. - In all cases subject to pr interested party who desires to have the action of the Collector reviewed, shall make a protest, other action of the Collector shall be final and conclusive against him, except as to matters collectible for error in the manner prescribed in section one thousand seven hundred and seven hereof. SEC. 2310. Form and Scope of Protest. - Every protest shall be filed in accordance prescribed rules and regulations promulgated under this section and shall point out the particular de ruling, of the Collector to which exception is taken or objection made, and shall indicate with re precision the particular ground or grounds upon which the protesting party bases his claim for relief. The scope of a protest shall be limited to the subject matter of a single adjustment independent transaction, but any number of issue may be raised in a protest with reference to the particular item or items constituting the subject matter of the protest. SEC. 2311. Samples to be Furnished by Protesting Parties. - If the nature of the articles permit, importers filing protests involving questions of fact must, upon demand, supply the Collector with samples of the articles which are the subject matter of the protest. Such samples shall be verified by the customs official who made the classification against which the protest are filed. SEC. 2312. Decision or Action of Collector in Protest and Seizure Cases. - When a protest in proper form is presented in a case where protest is required, the Collector shall issue an order for hearing within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the protest and hear the matter thus presented. Upon the termination of the hearing, the Collector shall render a decision within thirty (30) days, and if the protest is sustained, in whole or in part, he shall make the appropriate
13
order, the entry reliquidated necessary. In seizure cases, the Collector, after a hearing shall in writing make a declaration of forfeiture amount of the fine or take such other action as may be proper. SEC. 2313. Review of Commissioner. - The person aggrieved by the decision or Collector in any matter presented upon protest or by his action in any case of seizure may, within days after notification on writing by the Collector of his actions or decisions, file a written notice to the Collector with a copy furnished to the Commissioner of his intention to appeal the action or decision of the Collector to the Commissioner. Thereupon the Collector shall forthwith transmit all the recc, proceedings to the Commissioner, who shall approve, modify or reverse the action or decision of t~~ and take such steps and make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to his decision: Provided, That when an appeal is filed beyond the period herein prescribed, the same shag be deemed dismissed. If in any seizure proceedings, the Collector renders a decision adverse to the Government, such decision shall be automatically reviewed by the Commissioner and the records of the case elevated (5) days from the promulgation of the decision of the Collector. The Commissioner shall render a decision on the automatic appeal within thirty (30) days from receipts of the records of the case. If the Collector'~ is reversed by the Commissioner, the decision of the Commissioner shall be final and executory: K the Collector's decision is affirmed, or if within thirty (30) days from receipt of the record of the ca~ Commissioner no decision is rendered or the decision involves imported articles whose published value is five million pesos (P 5,000,000.00) or more, such decision shall be deemed automatically appealed to the Secretary of Finance and the records of the proceedings shall be elevated within five (5) days promulgation of the decision of the Commissioner or of the Collector under appeal, as the case may be, is affirmed by the Secretary of Finance, or within thirty (30) days from receipt of the proceedings by the Secretary of Finance, no decision is rendered, the decision of the Secretary of Finance, or of the Commissioner, or of the Collector under appeal, as the case may be, shall become final and executory. In any seizure proceeding, the release of imported articles shall not be allowed unless apd until a decision of the Collector has been confirmed in writing by the Commissioner of Customs (R.A. 7651, June 04, 1993). B. AUTOMATIC REVIEW BY THE COMMISSIONER AND THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE SEC. 2313. Review of Commissioner. Supra SEC. 2315. Supervisory Authority of Commissioner and Secretary of Finance in Certain Cases. - If any case involving the assessment of duties, the Collector renders a decision adverse to the Government, such decision shall be automatically elevated to, and reviewed by, the Commissioner; and if the Collector's decision would be affirmed by the Commissioner, such decision shall he automatically elevated to, and be finally reviewed by, the Secretary of Finance: Provided, however, That if within thirty (30) days from receipt of the record of the case by the Commissioner or by. the Secretary of Finance, as the case may be, no decision is rendered by either of them, the decision under review shall be final and executory: Provided, further, That any party aggrieved by either the decision of the Commission or of the Secretary of Finance may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy of such decision. For this purpose, Republic Act numbered eleven hundred and twenty -five is hereby amended accordingly. Except as provided in the preceding paragraph, the supervisory authority of the Secretary of Finance over the Bureau of Customs shall not extend to the administrative review of the ruling or decision of the Commissioner in matters appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals.
B. Judicial Remedies 1. SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

SEC. 2401. Supervision and Control Over Criminal and Civil Proceedings. - Civil and criminal actions and proceedings instituted in behalf of the government under the authority of this Code or other law enforced by the Bureau shall be brought in the name of the government of

the Philippines and shall be conducted by customs officers but no civil or criminal action for the recovery of duties or the enforcement of any fine, penalty or forfeiture under this Code shall be filed in court without the approval of the Commissioner." (R.A. 9135, April 27, 2001)
14
2. REVIEW BY CTA
SEC. 2402. Review by Court of Tax Appeals. - The party aggrieved by the ruling of the Commissioner in any matter brought before him upon protest or by his action or ruling in any case of seizure may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals, in the manner and within the period prescribed by law and regulations. Unless an appeal is made to the Court of Tax Appeals in the manner and within the period prescribe by laws and regulations, the action or ruling of the Commissioner shall be final and conclusive. SEC. 2315. supra RA 9282: AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. The CTA shall exercise: a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided: 1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue; 2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments, refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations thereto, or other matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial; 3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction; 4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws administered by the Bureau of Customs; 5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals; 6. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically for review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the Government under Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code; 7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of nonagricultural product, commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product, commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing duties under Section 301 and 302, respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under Republic Act No. 8800, where either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties. b. Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses as herein provided: 1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs: Provided, however, That offenses or felonies mentioned in this paragraph where the principal amount o taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or where there is no specified amount claimed shall be tried by the regular Courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA
shall be appellate. Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability for taxes and penalties shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in the same proceeding by the CTA, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filling of such civil action separately from the criminal action will be recognized. 2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses: a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax cases originally decided by them, in their respected territorial jurisdiction. b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective jurisdiction. c. Jurisdiction over tax collection cases as herein provided: 1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and executory assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties: Provided, however, That collection cases where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be tried by the proper Municipal Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court. 2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases: a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax collection cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction. b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in the Exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in their respective jurisdiction."
3. APPEAL FROM THE CTA DIVISION TO CTA EN BANC 4. APPEAL TO SC III. CLAIM FOR REFUND
SEC. 1707. Correction of Errors. - Refund of Excess Payments. - Manifest clerical errors made in an invoice or entry, errors in return of weight, measure and gauge, when duly certified to, under penalties of falsification or perjury, by the surveyor or examining official (when there are such officials at the port), and errors in the distribution of charges on invoices not involving any question of law and certified to, under penalties of falsification or perjury, by the examining official, may be corrected in the computation of duties, if such errors be discovered before the payments of duties, or if discovered within one year after the final liquidation, upon written request and notice of error from the importer, or upon statement of error certified by the Collector. For the purpose of correcting errors specified in the next preceding paragraph the Collector is authorized to reliquidate entries and collect additional charges, or to make refunds on statement of errors within the statutory time limit. SEC. 1708. Claim for Refund of Duties and Taxes and Mode of Payment. - All claims for refund of duties shall be made in writing and forwarded to the Collector to whom such duties are paid, who upon receipt of such claim, shall verify the same by the records of his Office, and if found to be correct and in accordance with law, shall certify the same to the Commissioner with his recommendation together with all necessary papers and documents. Upon receipt by the Commissioner of such certified claim he shall cause the same to be paid if found correct. If a result of the refund of customs duties there would necessarily result a corresponding refund of internal revenue taxes on the same importation, the Collector shall likewise certify the same to the Commissioner who shall cause the said taxes to be paid, refunded, or tax credited in favor of the importer, with advice to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Remedies Under The Tariff and Customs Code

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Remedies Under The Tariff and Customs Code

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

REMEDIES UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE