CUSN06B:

Customs Administrative
&
Judicial Proceeding

Submitted to:

Atty. Christopher P. Capul

Submitted by:

BFREE
I. Introduction

Three Branches of the Government

Executive Branch

 Vested in the President of the Philippines.

 The President is entrusted the power to execute, implement or administer the
laws of the Republic.

Legislative Branch

 Vested to the Congress of the Philippines, it is bicameral body consisting of the

Senate and House of Representative.
 Power to make laws, revoke, amend.

Judicial Branch

 Vested in Supreme Court and other lower courts.

 Settle controversies involving rights, which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government.

SEARCH, ALERT, SEIZURE AND ARREST

ARTICLE III: BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 1.No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of
law, nor any person denied the equal protection of the law.

Due process of law: Not necessarily a hearing but “opportunity” to be “heard”.

Equal protection of law: The right of person to be treated equally before the law
both in the privileges conferred and liabilities imposed.

Section 2.The right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath of affirmation of the complainant and the witness he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
: Give the right against unreasonable searches and seizure

What makes the searches and seizures unreasonable?

Search and Seizure is illegal if there is no search warrant (vice versa).

Requisites for valid Search Warrant

1. It must be issued upon probable cause.

2. Probable cause must be determined personally by Judge.
3. Describe the place and person to be search, and things to be seized.

Search

 Find particular subject; To find persons to arrest and things to be seized.

Arrest

 Taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense.

Arrest and Seizure are the same?

 Arrest are pertaining to a person , while the seizure pertaining to a thing, But they
both need warrant.

Arrest without warrant:

1. When, in is presence, the person to be arrested has committed is actually

committing or is attempting to commit an offense.
2. When an offense has just been committed and has personal knowledge that
the person to be arrested has committed it.
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment.

Valid warrantless Search

 When there is a consent of waiver

 When search is incident to lawful arrest
 When the possession of articles prohibited by law and disclosed to PLAIN VIEW

EXERCISE OF POLICE AUTHORITY

 Who are the persons valid to conduct customs search?

Persons under Section 214 and 218 of the CMTA.

Section 214.Persons Exercising Police Authority

a) Officials of the Bureau, District Collectors, Deputy District Collector, Police

Officers, agents, inspectors, and guards of the Bureau.
b) Upon authorization of the Commissioner, officers and members of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and national law enforcement agencies
c) Officials of the BIR on all cases falling within the regular performance of their
duties, when payment of internal revenue taxes is involved.

Section 218.Authority to Require Assistance and Information

Any person exercising police authority may demand the assistance of and request
information from the Philippine National Police (PNP),the AFP and other national law
enforcement agencies,when necessary,to effect any search, seizure or arrest. It shall be
the duty of any police officer and other national law enforcers to give such lawful
assistance.

Place the Police Authority may be exercise?

Place under section 215, 300, 303of the CMTA.
Section 215.Place Where Authority may be exercised

All persons exercising police authority as described in the preceding section shall only
exercise powers within customs premises as provided for in Section 303 of this act, and
within the limits of the authority granted by the Commissioner.

Port and Airport authorities in all ports of entry shall provide authorized customs
officers with unhampered access to all premises within their administrative jurisdiction.

Section 300.Customs Jurisdiction

For the effective implementation of this Act, the Bureau shall exercise jurisdiction
over all seas within Philippine territory and all coasts, ports, airports, harbour, bays,
rivers, and inland waters whether navigable or not from the sea and any means of
conveyance.

The Bureau shall pursue imported goods subject to seizure during its transport by
land, water and air and shall exercise jurisdiction as may be necessary for the effective
enforcement of this act. When a vessel or aircraft becomes subject to seizure for
violation of this Act, a pursuit of such vessel or aircraft which began within the territorial
waters or air space may continue beyond the same, and the vessel or aircraft may be
seized in the high seas or international air space.

Section 303.Control over Premises Used for Customs Purposes

The Bureau shall, for customs purposes, have exclusive control, direction and
management of customs offices, facilities, warehouses, ports, airports, wharves,
infrastructure, and other premises in the Customs Districts, in all cases without
prejudice to the general police power of the Local Government Units (LGU’s), the
Philippine Coast Guard and of law enforcement agencies in the exercise of their
respective functions.
Note: Special Power is not exercise by Section 214 but the Section 224.

Section 224.Power to Inspect and Visit

The Commissioner or any customs officerwho is authorized in writing by the

Commissioner, may demand evidence of payment of duties and taxes on
importedgoods openly for sale or kept in storage. In the event that the interested party
fail to produce such evidence within fifteen (15) days, the goods may be seized and
subject for seizure and forfeiture proceedings: Provided, That during the proceedings,
the interested party shall be given the opportunity to prove or show the source of the
goods and the payment of duties and taxes thereon: Provided, further, That when the
warrant of seizure has been issued but subsequent documents presented evidencing
proper payment re found to be authentic and in order, the District Collector shall, within
fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the motion to quash or recall the warrant , cause the
immediate release of the goods seized, subject to clearance by the Commissioner:
Provided, finally , That the release thereof shall not be contrary to law.
PAPA vs. MAGO

Facts:

Petitioner Marvin Alagao Head of the Intelligence Unit of the Manila Police Department
received an information that the certain shipment allegedly misdeclared and
undervalued would be released from the Port of Manila, Alagao and deputized agents of
the Bureau of Customs conducted surveillance of two trucks allegedly carrying the
goods. When the trucks left the customs zone, elements of the counter-intelligence unit
intercepted them in Ermita. The trucks and the nine bales of goods they carried were
seized on instructions of the Chief Police. Respondent filed a petition for mandamus
with restraining order or preliminary injunction. She complained that the goods re seized
without warrant.

Issue:

Whether or not the search and seizure are valid

Ruling:

Alagao and his companion policemen had authority to effect seizure and without search
warrant issued by a competent court. The Tariff and Customs Code does not require
said warrant in the instant case, The persons having police authority under section 2203
(Section 219, CMTA) of the TCCP to enter pass through or search any land, inclosure,
warehouse, store or building not being a dwelling house.

Vierneza vs. Commissioner

Facts:

 M/V Legaspi, a coastwise vessel coming from Jolo docked at the Port of Cebu.
 The Collector of customs of Cebu conducted a search on the vessel and seized
650 cartons of chesterfield cigarettes and 110 cartons of camel cigarettes
because it was found that the said goods do not have required Internal Revenue
strip stamps.
 Vierneza was found to be the holder of the bill of lading on board the vessel.
 The goods were consigned to Carlos Valdez in Manila, Sultan Pula as the
consignor.

Issue:

 Whether or not the search and seizure was valid.

 Whether or not the Collector of Cebu has the jurisdiction over the goods.

Ruling:

 The Warrantless search and seizure was valid because it was customs search
under section 300 of the CMTA.
 The collector of Cebu has the jurisdiction over the goods under the section 202
Functions of the Bureau (d) is to suppress smuggling and the persons exercising
police authority executed by the CMTA was under section 214, one of those is
the District Collector of any port in the Philippines.
 Vierneza, was found to be the holder of the bill of lading. Under section 404 of
the CMTA, the holder of the bill of lading is considered the owner of the goods.
 ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS

Classification- Refers to the process of determining whether imported merchandise is

dutiable, and if so, the rate of duty.

Valuation- A procedure applied to determine the dutiable value of imported goods.

Rules of Origin- are sets off principles to determine the economic content and
nationality of the product.

ADVANCE RULING AND DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

( Section 1100- 1105 )

(CAO-3-2016)

File a written application for an advance

ruling with the Tariff Commission.
90 days prior to the importation.

Commission shall render a ruling

within 30 days from the application.

If the declared tariff classification,

valuation, rules of origin is in dispute
then the Bureau, importer or exporter
shall submit the matter to the Tariff
Commission, without prejudice to the
application of“protest”

SEIZURE, FORFEITURE AND PROTEST

FORFEITURE
SEIZURE
A LEGAL ACTION TAKEN BY
TAKING THE POSSESSION
CUSTOMS TO DIVEST AN
OF GOODS BY PUBLIC
OWNER OF TITLE OVER A
AUTHORITY
SHIPMENT

PROTEST

A STRONG COMPLAINT EXPRESSING THE DISAGREEMENT,

DISAPPROVAL OR OPPOSITION
 SEIZURE & FORFEITURE

Determination of
DC –issue Order of Release (1117) probable cause (1117)
DC –issue Warrant of Seizure (1117)

DC –report to Comm (1116)

DC –report to Comm (1116)

DC- Transmit the record to the Comm (1117) DC –service of the warrant (1119)

Comm – automatically review (1117) DC –Description, Classification &

Valuation of Seized goods (1120)
Affirm Reverse

Owner Appearance
No decision CTA
FCA/FOB
>10M FCA/FOB
Goods <10M
Released DC – issue an Order for Forfeited
Sec of Fin Hearing (1125) (1121)
(1117) (1127) CTA (1136)
Hearing
Sec of Fin (1125)
(1127) No Decision Adv to Adv to
Gov Imp
DC-
CTA Decide(1
CTA 125)

No Adv to Adv to
Decision Gov Imp Release Order

CTA CTA Comm – Review, DECIDE (1127)

Forfeiture/Fine (1125)
No Decision WITH Decision (1127)

File a notice of appeal to DC, furnishing

Adv to Imp Adv to Gov
a copy to Comm (1126)

CTA (1136) FCA or

DC- transmit record to Comm (1126) Sec of Fin FCA or
FOB FOB
>10M <10M
Comm- review/decide (1126)

Adv to Gov Adv to Imp

30 days Affirm Reverse Sec of Fin CTA
No (1136)
Decision No
(1126) Decision
CTA (9282) CTA (1136) / Final (1127)

Affirmed
CTA (9282)
No Decision Adv to Gov Adv to
CTA Imp

CTA (9282)
CTA (1136) / Final (1127)
 PROTEST

DECISION OF
DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Present a written Failure to present

Protest to Comm. written protest to
(1106) Commissioner

Present samples of Action of District

the goods to the Collector shall be final
Commissioner and conclusive
(1109) (1107)

(110

Samples verified by the

Customs Officer who made the
classification against which the
protest are filed
(1109)

Protest sustained (in

Protest not sustained NO
favour of the
(in favour of the DECISION
importer)
government

Appropriate order made,

entry reassessed
(if necessary)
(1110) CTA CTA

(1136) (1136)

CTA

(1136)
Tri-Mark Ventures Trading Corporation vs. Commissioner

Facts:

On November 17, 1998, the Philippine National Police (PNP) issued an import
permit, which was valid until November 16, 1999, for the importation. These articles
which were mentioned in the Import Permit did not arrive in the Philippines at the same
time. The first shipment had already been released to petitioner. The second shipment
arrived on October 29, 1999.

The taxes and duties due on the articles in the second shipment have not yet
been paid by petitioner. (ACDD) of the Bureau of Customs issued the Warrant of
Seizure and Detention dated December 11, 2001, against the articles. BOC seized the
articles on the ground that the import permit covering the said importation thereof had
already expired.

On December 17, 2001, District Collector Celso P. Temple of BOC Collection

District Ill set the case for hearing. On January 31 , 2002, District Collector Celso P.
Temple rendered a Decision forfeiting the subject goods in favor of the government.
Before the Decision could become final and executor petitioner, by way of a letter to the
BOC Commissioner dated February 4, 2002, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
Decision and offered to pay the taxes and duties due on the goods for their return.

District Collector of Customs Celso P. Temple denied petitioner's Motion for

Reconsideration in an Order dated August 19, 2002. On September 11 , 2002,
petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal of the Order to respondent. 12 On November 5, 2002,
petitioner received a copy of an Order issued by respondent requiring it to submit a
Position Paper within ten (1 0) days from receipt. 13 Petitioner filed the Position Paper
on November 15, 2002.

Respondent rendered a Decision dated October 29, 2003, affirming the Order of
Forfeiture of petitioner's goods by the District Collector of Customs.

Issue:

Whether the Commissioner of Customs could legally order the forfeiture of petitioner's
subject goods in favor of government on the ground that the import permit covering the
importation thereof had already expired before petitioner could pay the taxes and duties
due thereon.

Whether the petitioner actually received separate notices of the 17 December 2001 and
the 29 January 2002 initial forfeiture hearing set by the Auction and Cargo Disposal
Division (ACDD).

Whether or not the petitioner may pay the taxes and duties due on the goods for their
return.

Ruling:

The goods involved in this case are considered prohibited. Its importation may be
allowed only when authorized by law. The goods entered Philippine jurisdiction on
October 29, 1999 and it failed to pay the duties thereon within the period of validity. As a
result, respondent ordered the forfeiture of petitioner's goods. Thus, the importation is
illegal. (Section 118-119 of CMTA)

Respondent sufficiently explained that a Notice of Hearing was posted in the Bulletin
Board of the Bureau of Customs' Law Division. According to respondent, a Notification
to Unknown Owner was posted because petitioner's address was not written on the
Examiner's Report. Since petitioner did not present evidence to show that respondent
has knowledge of its address, respondent was correct in posting a Notification to
Unknown Owner in the Bulletin Board of the Bureau of Customs' Law Division. Thus,
petitioner was constructively notified of the hearings set by the ACDD.

For being an illegal importation, respondent is prohibited from accepting payment of

duties thereon in accordance with SEC. 1124 of CMTA. Settlement of any seizure case
by payment of the fine or redemption of 7 forfeited goods shall not be allowed when
there is fraud, or where the importation 8 is prohibited or the release of the goods is
contrary to law.
Solid Mills