Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 981 views

    TAX CASE MV Don Martin vs. Secretary of Finance

    Uploaded by

    Diane Uy
    The M/V Don Martin was transporting 6,500 sacks of rice from Occidental Mindoro to Cagayan de Oro City. It was seized by customs agents who suspected the rice was smuggled. However, the vessel owner presented documents showing the rice was produced, milled, and acquired locally. While customs found the rice grains were unusually long, this was not substantial evidence to overcome the documents proving legal transport. The court ruled the customs bureau did not prove the rice was unlawfully imported and failed to establish probable cause for the seizure. The documents showed the rice was of domestic origin so forfeiture was improper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    TAX CASE MV Don Martin vs. Secretary of Finance

    Uploaded by

    Diane Uy
    981 views1 page
    The M/V Don Martin was transporting 6,500 sacks of rice from Occidental Mindoro to Cagayan de Oro City. It was seized by customs agents who suspected the rice was smuggled. However, the vessel owner presented documents showing the rice was produced, milled, and acquired locally. While customs found the rice grains were unusually long, this was not substantial evidence to overcome the documents proving legal transport. The court ruled the customs bureau did not prove the rice was unlawfully imported and failed to establish probable cause for the seizure. The documents showed the rice was of domestic origin so forfeiture was improper.

    Original Description:

    Tax Law

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The M/V Don Martin was transporting 6,500 sacks of rice from Occidental Mindoro to Cagayan de Oro City. It was seized by customs agents who suspected the rice was smuggled. However, the vessel owner presented documents showing the rice was produced, milled, and acquired locally. While customs found the rice grains were unusually long, this was not substantial evidence to overcome the documents proving legal transport. The court ruled the customs bureau did not prove the rice was unlawfully imported and failed to establish probable cause for the seizure. The documents showed the rice was of domestic origin so forfeiture was improper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    981 views1 page

    TAX CASE MV Don Martin vs. Secretary of Finance

    Uploaded by

    Diane Uy
    The M/V Don Martin was transporting 6,500 sacks of rice from Occidental Mindoro to Cagayan de Oro City. It was seized by customs agents who suspected the rice was smuggled. However, the vessel owner presented documents showing the rice was produced, milled, and acquired locally. While customs found the rice grains were unusually long, this was not substantial evidence to overcome the documents proving legal transport. The court ruled the customs bureau did not prove the rice was unlawfully imported and failed to establish probable cause for the seizure. The documents showed the rice was of domestic origin so forfeiture was improper.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as RTF, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as rtf, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    M/V "DON MARTIN" VOY 047 vs.

    SECRETARY OF FINANCE
    G.R. No. 160206 July 15, 2015

    DOCTRINE
    The burden of proof to show that a vessel and its cargo are subject to forfeiture and
    seizure for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code fall upon the party alleging that such
    were smuggled goods. Absent substantial evidence to disprove documentary evidence
    submitted by the vessel owner there can be no forfeiture and seizure. Inconclusive evidence
    pertaining to the length of the grain of rice cannot overcome documentary evidence that
    show that said rice were produced, milled, and acquired locally.

    FACTS
    Petitioner Palacio Schipping Inc. was the owner of M/V Don Martin, a vessel of
    Philippine registry engaged in coastwise trade. The vessel docked at the port of Cagayan de
    Oro City with its cargo of 6,500 sacks of rice consigned to petitioner Leopoldo “Juniors”
    Pamulaklakin a day after its cargo was loaded in Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro. It was
    apprehended and seized by the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EEIB) after
    receiving intelligence that the cargo was smuggled. Thereafter, the District Collector of
    Customs in Cagayan de Oro City issued a warrant of seizure and detention pursuant to 2301
    of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines. Petitioner contended that the vessel was a
    common carrier and that the cargo was locally produced and supported by several
    documents. However, the District Collector of Customs rendered ruling that in the absence
    of a showing of lawful entry into the country, the cargo were of foreign origin and thus
    subject to seizure and forfeiture for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code of the
    Philippines. The grains were unusually long and that some white sacks were marked with
    Premium Rice which is for yellow color sacks. It concluded that the documents presented by
    petitioner were a strategy to conceal the true nature and origin of the cargoes.

    ISSUES
    Whether or not the CTA had jurisdiction on the forfeiture of the cargo and of the
    vessel
    Whether or not the sacks of rice were unlawfully imported

    HELD
    Yes. Republic Act No. 1125 (An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals), provides that
    decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving seizure and forfeiture are
    appealable to the CTA and the TCCP reiterates the same for as long as the same is appealed
    within the period prescribed by law.
    No. The onus probandi rests on the party who ordered the shipment of rice and the
    vessel. The inconclusive findings cannot overcome the documentary evidence of petitioners
    that show that said rice was produced, milled and acquired locally. Also, at the time the
    vessel and cargo were seized, the agents of the EIIB and the Bureau of Customs never had a
    probable cause that would warrant the filing of the seizure proceedings. The Government
    agents only made their inquiries about the alleged smuggling only three (3) days after the
    seizure. This is a gross violation of Section 2535 in relation to Section 2531 of the Tariff and
    Customs Code of the Philippines.

    You might also like