G.R. No. L-23803. February 26, 1968
C.F. SHARP & COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENT.
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
At or about four thirty in the morning of April 1, 1962, a water
patrol of the Bureau of Customs apprehended M/L Cheton
while it was passing through the breakwater of Manila loaded with 1,865 cartons
of untaxed blue seal cigarettes. The
vessel was seized for violation of Section 2530(a) of the Tariff and Customs
Code and immediately thereafter was subjected to forfeiture proceedings.
During the pendency of the case, the
Law Division of The Bureau of Customs recommended, in its report to the
Collector of Customs of the Port of Manila, the imposition of a fine of P1,000
instead of forfeiture on the ground that the incident was the first offense.
On June 11, 1962, after hearing the parties, the Collector of
Customs of the Port of Manila rendered a decision imposing a fine of P10,000
instead of P1,000 as recommended by the Law Division, in order to give force
and effect to the socio-economic program of the then President Diosdado Macapagal.
M/L Cheton’s owner, C.F. Sharp &
Co., Inc., moved for reconsideration, which was denied. It appealed to the Commissioner of Customs
who modified the decision of the Collector by ordering the forfeiture of the
vessel instead of imposing only a fine in the amount of P10,000. A motion for reconsideration was filed but
the same was subsequently denied.
Thereafter, C.F. Sharp & Co., Inc., appealed to the Court of Tax
Appeals.
The Court of Tax Appeals heard the parties and rendered the.
following judgment:
“Finding no reversible error in the decision appealed from,
the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner.”
A motion for reconsideration failed, hence this appeal.
The only issue in this case is whether or not M/L Cheton is subject to forfeiture in favor of the government
in accordance with paragraph a., Section 2530 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
It is contended that the M/L Cheton
should not be ordered forfeited because it was loaded with untaxed foreign made
cigarettes with duress upon its patron and crew; and, that it was not use to
transport said cigarettes from a foreign port to any port or place in the Philippines.
The patron and the crew of ML Cheton
executed affidavits to the effect that at four o’clock in the morning of
April 1, 1962, the M/L Cheton was intercepted on its
way from the Pasig River to the Manila Yacht Club by
four armed men riding in a motorized banca who posed
as employees of the Manila Port Service; that they were ordered to proceed to
pier 13 of the South Harbor where the armed men hurriedly loaded the cigarettes
in question; that after the loading, they were ordered to proceed towards Cavite; that before reaching the breakwater, the patron
sighted a customs patrol boat towards which he directed the course of M/L Cheton; that when they Were along side the customs patrol
boat they informed the customs agents of their cargo; and that the four armed
men and their banca just vanished from the scene.
The said written statements regarding duress were not given
credence by the Bureau of Customs and by the Court of Tax Appeals. Appellate Courts usually do not interfere
with the lower court’s findings as to the credibility of witnesses and other
evidence for credibility is best left with the trial court – the Court of Tax
Appeals – and the Bureau of Customs which had the opportunity of observing
the witnesses, in the absence of a showing that some fact or circumstance of
weight and influence in the record was overlooked or misapplied, or its
significance misunderstood by the court.[1]
We see no reason to alter the finding of the Court of Tax Appeals on this
point.
C.F. Sharp & Co., Inc maintains further that paragraph a.,
Section 2530 of the Tariff and Customs Code does not apply to the instant case
inasmuch as it was not proved that M/L Cheton was
unlawfully used in the importation of articles into any Philippine port.
Paragraph a. of section 2530 of the Tariff and Customs Code
states:
“SEC. 2530. Property
Subject to Forfeiture Under Tariff and Customs Laws. – Any vessel or
aircraft cargo, articles and other objects shall, under the following
conditions, be subject to forfeiture:
“a. Any vessel or aircraft, including cargo, which
shall be used unlawfully in the importation or exportation of articles into or
from any Philippine port or place except a port of entry; and any vessel which,
being of less than thirty tons capacity shall be used in the importation of
articles into any Philippine port or place except into a port of the Sulu sea where importation in such vessel may be authorized
by the Commissioner, with the approval of the department head.”
There is no question that M/L Cheton
was apprehended carrying untaxed cigarettes of foreign origin without the,
necessary papers showing that they were entered lawfully through a port of
entry. There is no question also that
said cigarettes were liable for forfeiture pursuant to the Customs and Tariff
Code. On the basis of the aforestated facts, the conclusion is inevitable that the
M/L Cheton was used in connection with unlawful
importation of said cigarettes. The
burden was therefore shifted to the boat’s owner to show that the carriage by
M/L Cheton of the smuggled cigarettes was
lawful. No such showing was made. Hence, the Court of Tax Appeals committed no
error in ordering the forfeiture of the launch in question. By way of comment, on petitioner’s stand, it
would be absurd to require the Government to prove that a vessel was engaged in
smuggling, after it has already been caught red-handed, that is, loaded with
smuggled goods.
With respect to petitioner’s plea that it was deprived of its
property without due process in that the Commissioner of Customs rendered his
decision without conducting a formal hearing, suffice it to state that Section
2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code, quoted below:
“SEC. 2313. Review
by Commissioner. – The person aggrieved by the decisions 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.”
Does not require the Commissioner of Customs to hold a formal
hearing. His duty is to approve, modify
or reverse the decision of the Collector of Customs on the basis of the
records, papers and evidence presented before the latter. Moreover, the proceedings had before the
Court of Tax Appeals was a trial de novo[2]
and if petitioner desired to present evidence in addition to those already
presented before the Collector of Customs, it could have done so.
Petitioner further urges Us to resolve in its favor the alleged
“doubt” in this case. The so-called “doubt” is that
allegedly produced by the acquittal of the patron and crew of M/L Cheton from criminal charges in connection with the
incident at bar. Insofar as the evidence adduced in this case is concerned
there is no doubt that M/L Cheton was used in
smuggling for which it should suffer the penalty of forfeiture pursuant to
law. The result of criminal proceedings
in a separate case before a different tribunal, being dependent upon the
evidence adduced therein, would not necessarily influence the judgment in the
instant case.
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby
affirmed. With costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
[1] U.S.
v. Ambrosio, 17 Phil. 295; U.S.
v. Estrada, 24 Phil 401; People v. Asmawil,
L-18761, March 31, 1965.
[2]
Sec. 7 Rule 16, Rules of Court of Tax Appeals.
See Montejo, COURT OF TAX APPEALS ACT
ANNOTATED, p. 141.