Tarrif Cases Philippines
Tarrif Cases Philippines
Tarrif Cases Philippines
CHEVRON
INC.,
-
PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 178759
Petitioner,
v
e
r
s
u
s
COM
MISS
IONE
R OF
THE
BUR
EAU
OF
CUS
TOM
S,
Respondent.
ENTRY IN SECTIONS 1301 AND
1801 OF THE TCC REFERS TO BOTH
THE IED AND IEIRD
Under Section 1301 of the TCC,
imported articles must be entered within
a non-extendible period of 30 days from
the date of discharge of the last package
from a vessel. Otherwise, the BOC will
deem the imported goods impliedly
abandoned under Section 1801. Thus:
Section
1301. Persons Authorized
to Make Import Entry.
- Imported
articles
must be entered in the
customhouse
at
the
port of entry within
thirty (30) days, which
shall not be extendible
from date of discharge
of the last package
from
the
vessel or
aircraft either (a) by the
importer, being holder of
the bill of lading, (b) by a
duly
licensed
customs
broker
acting
under
authority from a holder of
the bill or (c) by a person
duly empowered to act as
agent or attorney-in-fact
for each holder: Provided,
That where the entry is
filed by a party other than
the
importer,
said
deliberations
on
RA
7651
which
amended the TCC to provide a nonextendible 30-day period show the
legislative intent to expedite the
procedure for declaring importations as
abandoned. Filing an entry serves as
notice to the BOC of the importers
willingness to complete the importation
and to pay the proper taxes, duties and
fees. Conversely, the non-filing of the
entry within the period connotes the
importers disinterest and enables the
BOC
to
consider
the
goods
as
abandoned. Since the IED is a BOC form
that serves as basis for payment of
advance duties on importation as
required under PD 1853,[20] it suffices as
an entry under Sections 1301 and 1801
of the TCC.[21]
We disagree.
The term entry in customs law
has a triple meaning. It means (1) the
documents filed at the customs house;
(2) the submission and acceptance of
the documents and (3) the procedure of
passing goods through the customs
house.[22]
The IED serves as basis for the
payment
of
advance
duties
on
importations
whereas
the
IEIRD
evidences the final payment of duties
and taxes. The question is: was the
filing of the IED sufficient to constitute
entry under the TCC?
The law itself, in Section 205,
defines the meaning of the technical
term entered as used in the TCC:
Section 205. Entry,
or
Withdrawal
from
Warehouse,
for
Consumption. - Imported
articles
shall
be
deemed entered in
the
Philippines
for
consumption when the
specified entry form is
properly
filed
and
accepted, together with
any related documents
regained by the provisions
of
this
Code
and/or
regulations to be filed with
such form at the time of
entry, at the port or
station by the customs
official
designated
to
receive such entry papers
and any duties, taxes, fees
and/or
other
lawful
charges required to be
paid at the time of making
such entry have been paid
or secured to be paid with
the
customs
official
designated to receive such
monies, provided that the
article
has
previously
arrived within the limits of
the port of entry.
xxx
xxx
xxx
(Emphasis supplied)
Clearly, the operative act that
constitutes entry of the imported
articles at the port of entry is the filing
and acceptance of the specified entry
form together with the other documents
required by law and regulations. There
is no dispute that the specified entry
form refers to the IEIRD. Section 205
defines the precise moment when the
imported articles are deemed entered.
Moreover, in the old case of Go
Ho Lim v. The Insular Collector of
Customs,[23] we ruled that the word
entry
refers
to
the
regular
consumption entry (which, in our current
terminology, is the IEIRD) and not the
provisional entry (the IED):
It is disputed by
the parties whether the
application for the special
permit.
Exhibit
A,
containing
the
misdeclared weight of the
800 cases of eggs, comes
within the meaning of the
word "entry" used in
section
1290
of
the
Revised
Administrative
Code,
or
said
word "entry" means only
the "original entry and
importer's
declaration."
The court below reversed
the decision of the Insular
Collector of Customs on
the
ground
that
the
provisions of section 1290
of
the
Revised
Republic
Supreme
Manila
of
the
SECOND DIVISION
COMMISSIONER
OF
CUSTOMS
and
the
DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF THE PORT OF SUBIC,
Petitioners,
- versus -
and
not
imported
contrary to law. He shall
submit samples to the
laboratory for analysis
when feasible to do so and
when such analysis is
necessary for the proper
classification,
appraisal,
and/or admission into the
Philippines of imported
articles.
Likewise, the
customs officer shall
determine the unit of
quantity in which they
are usually bought and
sold, and appraise the
imported
articles
in
accordance
with
Section 201 of this
Code.
Failure on the part
of the customs officer to
comply with his duties
shall subject him to the
penalties prescribed under
Section 3604 of this Code.
The provision mandates that the
customs officer must first assess and
determine the classification of the
imported article before tariff may be
imposed. Unfortunately, CMO 23-2007
has already classified the article even
before the customs officer had the
chance to examine it. In effect, petitioner
Commissioner of Customs diminished
the powers granted by the Tariff and
Customs Code with regard to wheat
importation when it no longer required
the customs officers prior examination
and
assessment
of
the
proper
classification of the wheat.
It is well-settled that rules and
regulations, which are the product of a
delegated power to create new and
additional legal provisions that have the
effect of law, should be within the scope
of the statutory authority granted by the
legislature
to
the
administrative
agency. It is required that the regulation
be germane to the objects and purposes
of the law; and that it be not in
contradiction to, but in conformity with,
the standards prescribed by law.[23]
In summary, petitioners violated
respondents right to due process in the
issuance of CMO 27-2003 when they
failed to observe the requirements under
the
Revised
Administrative
Code.
FELIClDAD
VIERNEZA, petitioner,
vs.
THE
COMMISSIONER
OF
CUSTOMS, respondent.
Juan
T.
David
for
petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for
respondent.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
xxx
xxx
FELICISIMO
RIETA,
No. 147817
People
G.R.
Vs.
DECISION
Petitioners
contention
is
untenable. Persons found to be in
possession of smuggled items are
presumed to be engaged in smuggling,
pursuant to the last paragraph of Section
3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
[29]
The burden of proof is thus shifted to
them. To rebut this presumption, it is not
enough for petitioner to claim good faith
and lack of knowledge of the unlawful
source of the cigarettes. He should have
presented evidence to support his claim
and to convince the court of his noncomplicity.
In
the
case
adverted
to
earlier, Rimorin v. People, we held thus:
In his discussion
of a similarly worded
provision of Republic Act
No. 455, a criminal law
authority explained thus:
In order that a
person may be deemed guilty of
smuggling or illegal importation
under the foregoing statute three
requisites must concur: (1) that
the merchandise must have been
fraudulently
or
knowingly
imported contrary to law; (2) that
the defendant, if he is not the
importer himself, must have
received, concealed, bought, sold
or in any manner facilitated the
transportation, concealment or
sale of the merchandise; and (3)
that the defendant must be shown
to have knowledge that the
merchandise had been illegally
imported. If
the
defendant,
Being
contrary
to
human
experience, his version of the facts is too
pat and stereotyped to be accepted at
face value. Evidence, to be believed, not
only must proceed from the mouth of a
credible witness; it must also be credible
in itself, as when it conforms to common
experience
and
observation
of
humankind.[32]
The absence of any suspicious
reaction on the part of petitioner was not
in accordance with human nature. The
involvement or participation he and his
co-accused had in the smuggling of the
goods was confirmed by their lack of
proper and reasonable justification for
the fact that they had been found inside
the cargo truck, seated in front, when it
was
intercepted
by
the
authorities. Despite his protestation, it is
obvious that petitioner was aware of the
strange nature of the transaction, and
that he was willing to do his part in
furtherance
thereof. The
evidence
presented
by
the
prosecution
established his work of guarding and
escorting the contraband to facilitate its
transportation from the Port Area to
Malabon, an act punishable under
Section 3601 of the Tax Code.
Under the Tariff and Customs Code,
a search, seizure and arrest may be made
even without a warrant for purposes of
enforcing customs and tariff laws. Without
mention of the need to priorly obtain a
judicial warrant, the Code specifically
allows police authorities to enter, pass
through or search any land, enclosure,
warehouse, store or building that is not 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 to 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.[38]
PILIPINAS
PETROLEUM
161953
CORPORATION,
G.R.
Petitioner
SHELL
No.
Respondent.
March 6, 2008
DECISION
Assessments inform taxpayers of
their tax liabilities.[36] Under the TCCP,
the assessment is in the form of a
liquidation made on the face of the
import entry return and approved by the
Collector of Customs.[37] Liquidation is
the final
computation
and
ascertainment by the Collector of
Customs of the duties due on
imported
merchandise based
on
official reports as to the quantity,
character and value thereof, and the
Collector of Customs' own finding as to
the
applicable
rate
of
duty. [38] A
liquidation is considered to have been
made when the entry is officially
stamped liquidated.[39]
Petitioner claims that it paid the
duties due on its importations. Section
1603 of the old TCCP stated:
Section 1603. Finality of
Liquidation. When articles
have been entered and
passed free of duty or
final
adjustments
of
duties
made,
with
subsequent
delivery,
such entry and passage
free of duty or settlement
of duties will, after the
expiration of one year
from the date of the final
payment of duties, in the
absence of fraud or
protest, be final and
conclusive
upon
all
parties,
unless
the
liquidation of the import
entry
was
merely
tentative.[40]
An assessment or liquidation by
the
BoC
attains
finality
and
conclusiveness one year from the date of
the final payment of duties except when:
(a) there was fraud;
(b)
there is a pending
protest or
(c)
the
liquidation
of
import
entry
was
merely tentative.
None of the foregoing exceptions
is present in this case. There was no
fraud as petitioner claimed (and was
presumed) to be in good faith.
Respondent does not dispute this.
Moreover, records show that petitioner
paid those duties without protest using
its TCCs. Finally, the liquidation was not
a tentative one as the assessment had
long become final and incontestable.
Consequently, pursuant to Yabes[41] and
because of the cancellation of the TCCs,
respondent had the right to file a
collection case.
Section
provides:
1204
of
the
TCCP
affected; fines
and
forfeitures or other
penalties imposed in
relation thereto; or
other matters arising
under Customs Law or
other laws or part of
law administered by
the
Bureau
of
Customs; and
(3) Decisions of
the provincial or city
Boards of Assessment
Appeals
in
cases
involving the assessment
and taxation of real
property or other matters
arising
under
the
Assessment
Law,
including
rules
and
regulations
relative
thereto.[44] (emphasis
supplied)
Inasmuch as the present case did
not
involve
a
decision
of
the
Commissioner of Customs in any of the
instances enumerated in Section 7(2) of
RA 1125, the CTA had no jurisdiction
over the subject matter. It was the RTC
that had jurisdiction under Section 19(6)
of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1980, as amended:[45]
Section
19.
Jurisdiction in Civil
Cases. Regional Trial
Courts
shall
exercise
exclusive
original
jurisdiction:
xxx
xxx
We
are
not
unmindful
of
petitioner's pending petition for review in
the CTA where it is questioning the
validity of the cancellation of the TCCs.
However, respondent cannot and should
not await the resolution of that case
before it collects petitioner's outstanding
customs duties and taxes for such delay
will unduly restrain the performance of
its functions.[46] Moreover, if the ultimate
outcome of the CTA case turns out to be
favorable to petitioner, the law affords it
the adequate remedy of seeking a
refund.
November
xxx
(6)
In
all
cases not within the
exclusive jurisdiction of
any
court,
tribunal,
person or body exercising
judicial or quasi-judicial
functions,
xxx.
In view of the foregoing, the RTC
should forthwith proceed with Civil Case
No. 02-103191 and determine the extent
of petitioner's liability.