FEBRUARY 7, 2025

1. FEEDER INTERNATIONAL LINE V. CA

Facts:

This case involves a foreign vessel named ULU WAI, owned and operated by
FEEDER INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING LINES OF SINGAPORE. It left Singapore on
May 6, 1986 carrying 1100 tons of fuel oil and 1000 tons of gas oil
consigned to Far East Synergy Corporation of Zamboanga.

It anchored at the vicinity of Guiuanon Island in Iloilo without notifying the

customs authorities. It only came to the knowledge of the authorities by a
civilian informer in that area. Days after, the Acting District Collector
dispatched a Customs team to verify the report.

It was found out by the team that the vessel do not have the required
shipping documents on board, except for a clearance from the Singaporean
authorities clearing the vessel for Zamboanga.

Because of that the vessel was held and a Warrant of Seizure and Detention
was issued after investigation. The petitioner filed a Motion to Dismiss and
Quash the Warrants of Seizure and Detention which the District Collector
denied in his order.

Administrative Bodies/ Quasi Judicial Bodies/Lower Court Rulings:

Forfeiture proceedings were held where the District Collector issued a

Decision finding M/T ULU WAI is guilty of violating certain provisions of the
Tariff and Customs Code and that the fuel oil and the gas oil are forfeited in
favor of the RP.

Petitioner appealed to the Commissioner on Customs which affirmed the

Decision of the District Collector.

Petitioner filed a petition for review before the CTA, praying for the
Injunction and Restraining Order to enjoin the order of the Commissioner,
but the it still affirmed the Decision of the Commissioner.

Petitioner filed a petition for review on the decision of the CTA before the
SC. The latter issued a resolution providing that final judgments or decrees
of the CTA are within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of
Appeals. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the CTA.
The motion for consideration was also denied.
ISSUES:

1. Whether or not there was an illegal importation committed, or at least an

attempt thereof, which would justify a forfeiture of the subject vessel and it
cargo.

SUPREME COURT RULING:

Yes. There was an illegal importation.

Under Section 1202 of the Tariff and Customs Code provides that
importation begins when a carrying vessel or enters the jurisdiction of the
Philippines with the intent to unload therein. It is then clear that the mere
intent to unload is sufficient to commence an importation. “Intent” being a
state of mind may be proved by unguarded expression, conduct and
circumstances generally.

In the case at bar, the petitioner is guilty of illegal importation, there being
an intent to unload as amply supported by substantial evidence. The
following circumstances unmistakably pointed to such conclusion that there
is an intent:

- The vessel came from Singapore and the route to Zamboanga is shorter. It
is illogical for a vessel to travel at a longer distance just to get necessary
repairs.

- The Vessel did not notify the Iloilo customs authorities of it’s arrival. The
marine protest filed by the master of the vessel 12 days after it had
anchored, which was supposedly done within 24 hours.

- The required ship and shipping documents were not on board except the
clearance from Singaporean authorities. There was a claim by the petitioner
that these were turned over to the shipping agent who boarded the vessel.
This claim was belied by the master of the ULU WAI.

In the sworn statement the ship agent claimed that he did not know the
buyer of the oil which is impossible if he had the Local Purchase order of
the Pogun Construction SDN. His knowledge-came from the owner without
mentioning the shipping documents. The captain of the vessel also
enumerated the documents he allegedly gave the ship agent but did not
mention of the Local Purchase Order and the Bill of Lading
 - When the vessel was inspected, a fixture note was revealed that the barge
and tugboat alongside it, were contracted by Consignee Far East Synergy to
load the cargo of the vessel into the awaiting barge and to discharge the
same in Manila.

These were the findings of the CA in consonance with the Commissioner

and collector. With this circumstances the SC ruled that it will not deviate to
the elementary rule that findings of fact of the CA and the administrative
and quasi-judicial bodies are entitled to great weight and are conclusive and
binding absent showing grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.

NOTES:

1. Forfeiture proceedings are not criminal in nature because they do not

result in the conviction or imposition of a penalty. Hence, proof beyond
reasonable doubt is not what is required, only substantial evidence or the
evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conviction.

Seizure proceedings are purely civil and administrative, the main purpose
of which is to enforce administrative fines incident to unlawful importation
of goods. The penalty is different from the criminal liability that might be
impose against the indicted importer or possessor.

2. The right to a counsel is not indispensable to due process unless required

by law. Example is during custodial investigation of a person suspected of a
crime, may not waive his right to counsel except in writing and in the
presence of a counsel, and during the trial of the accused, who has the right
to be heard by himself and counsel either retained by him or provided for
by the government at its expense.

Since in the case at bar, it is not criminal in nature, the need for assistance
of counsel is not urgent. There is nothing in the Constitution that says that
a party in a non-criminal proceeding is entitled to a counsel. And that
without such representation, he will not be bound by the proceedings.
finally the sworn statements were not proven to be taken under anomalous
circumstances that would render them inadmissible as evidence against the
petitioner.

************************************
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS ET. AL V. HONORABLE GUILLERMO TORRES
ET.AL

FACTS:

1. September 15 1963 - a shipment of of 158 packages of imported goods

and personal effects arrived and were unloaded at the port of Manila. The
customs duties, internal revenue taxes, fees and charges were paid by
respondents Angela Alvaran and Elpidio Floresca. Said packages were
released by the Manila customhouse.

2. October 19, 1963 - while the packages were being transported to their
destination, the packages were intercepted by agents of Manila Police
Department and were brought to MPD Headquarters.

3. The Vice Chairman and Chief of the Special Task Force of Presidential
Anti-Graft Committee (PAGCOM) informed the Collector of Customs of the
port of Manila the condition of the merchandise and that initial findings
revealed that those goods were released from customs zones without
proper appraisal by customs personnel, causing damage and loses to the
government. Later, the packages was mentioned to be with the Custody of
the Task Force stored in the bodega of Mr. Nemesio Yabut.

4. Juan Atencia, requested the Collector of Customs for the issuance of

proper warrant of seizure which became the basis of a seizure proceeding.

5. On October 22, 1963, Acting Collector of Customs issued a warrant of

seizure and detention directing certain agencies to effect the seizure. The
agents of PAGCOM requested and able to secure a search warrant from
respondent judge Andres Reyes for the search and seizure of “highly
dutiable goods illegally or anomalous withdrawn from the customs.

6. During the progress of the search and seizure, the respondents filed with
the Court of First Instance a petition praying for a writ of injunction to
restrain the petitioners from proceeding with further enforcement of the
warrants, with the proceeding seizure, for the return and delivery of the
confiscated goods and merchandise to them and for the nullity of the
warrant of seizure and detention issued by the Collector of Customs.

7. Before Civil case No. 7883 could be raffled for assignment to any
particular branch of the CFI of Rizal, Judge Guillermo Torres acted on the
said case and issued an order restraining the Collector of Customs and the
PAGCOM “from enforcing the warrant of seizure and detention issued by the
Collector of Customs on October 22, 1963 and from proceeding with the
acts complained of “until further order from the Court.” The petitioners
then were unable to transfer to the BOC the 158 packages subject of the
warrant of seizure and detention.

7. The petitioner filed of the CFO of Rizal, presided by Judge Torres an

opposition to the petition for writ of preliminary injunction with a motion
to lift restraining order, maintaining that the Collector of customs has
exclusive jurisdiction over the goods. The respondents on the other hand,
contended that the Bureau of Customs had lost jurisdiction over the goods
therefore the Collector of Customs could no longer validly institute seizure
proceedings against the goods.

LOWER COURT RULINGS:

1. Judge Torres denied the the opposition to the petition for preliminary
injunction and motion to lift the restraining order issued. The respondents,
Alvaran. Floresca and Africa asked for Court of Leave to file an amended
petition. Which was granted. Petitioners were given 10 days from receipt
form receipt of amended petition to file their answer. However the
petitioner, filed a motion to dismiss the amended petition.

2. Judge Torres denied the petitioner’s motion to dismiss the amended

petition and the motion to inventory and appraise the remaining 9 packages
left in Makati. In due time the petitioners filed their answer to the amended
petition and petitions in intervention, setting as defenses lack of
jurisdiction on the part of the court and lack of cause of action.

In Branch Vi of CFI of Rizal, presided by Judge Andres Reyes, proceeding

were held in connection with he goods in relation to the search warrant
issued by the Judge on October 23, 1963. The said Judge issued an order
commanding the Collector of Customs and PAGCOM the delivery oof the
goods and articles to the AMCYL bonded warehouse. Motion for
consideration was also denied.

4. Petitioners filed a manifestation that they would file with the SC a

petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction to annul and set aside the
order denying their motion for reconsideration. They filed a petition but the
same was not given due course. In view of the dismissal of the petition,
Judge Reyes issued the order appointing a special sheriff to carry out and
enforce his orders.
5. The petitioners moved for the deferment of the transfer of the
confiscated goods from Manila customhouse to AMCYL bonded warehouse
while questioning the adequacy of the surety bond filed with the Bureau of
Customs by the owners an operators of AMCYL.

6. Judge Reyes ordered the petitioners to comply with the order of Judge
Reyes but promptly filed an urgent motion for reconsideration and return of
the goods to customs premises. The petitioners the, without waiting for the
action on the motion for reconsideration, filed the present petition before
the court alleging that they have no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
law.

ISSUES:

A. WON the CFI has jurisdiction to review the actuations of the Customs
authorities and

B. WON the Bureau of customs had lost jurisdiction over the goods in
question

SUPREME COURT RULING:

A. No. Statutes as well as jurisprudence are very clear, that the CTA and not
the CFI has jurisdiction to review the actuations of the Customs Authorities
in regard to “seizure, detention or release of the property affected:fines,
forfeitures or other penalties imposed in relation thereto or other matters,
arising under the Customs La or other part if the law. That is provided
under RA No 1125 giving the CTA an exclusive appellate jurisdiction to
review the on appeal decisions of the Commissioner of Customs.

B. No. The argument the the issuance of the warrant of seizure and
detention was illegal, improper and arbitrary since it was issued after the
customs duties, taxes and other charges for the imported good have been
paid and the physical custody of the goods is not anymore with the
Collector of Customs, is of no moment.

Payment of the amount of duties does not necessarily terminate the

importation and make the release of the imported goods from customs zone
regular.

Importation is deemed terminated only upon full payment of duties, taxes

and other charges upon the articles, or secured to be paid at the port of
entry, and the legal permit for withdrawal shall have been granted. Hence, if
the payment is not full and the same is released, the release is irregular and
goods are subject to seizure. It can be seized outside the customs zone by
customs authorities persons deputized by the Commissioner of Customs or
by the Collector of Customs. - as in this case, the PAGCOM whose
deputation was specifically stated in the warrant issued by the Collector of
Customs.

In addition, the Judge has no power to take custody of the goods subject to
seizure proceedings because in doing so, it would render ineffective the
power of the customs authorities under the customs law and deprive the
CTA of exclusive appellate jurisdiction.

******************

ERWIN REMIGIO V. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

1. August 15, 1988 - a shipment of one (1) 40 feet container Van No NYKU
5046600 arrived at the port of Manila from Hong Kong via S/S NORSUND.
The packing list showed that the shipment was consigned to BORHAM
TRADING, located a 37 Harvard Street, QC. The packing list, invoice, bill of
lading as well as the Letter of Credit supporting the importation showed
that the 40 feet container van contained 25 MT of Sodium Bicarbonate with
a gross weight of 25,000 kgs.

2. August 19, 1988 - Petitioner Erwin C. Remigio, a customs broker file with
the Collector of Customs, Port of Manila, Import Entry and Internal Revenue
declaration covering the Shipment.

3. On the same date, Arthur Sevilla, Jr. a customs examiner, conducted an

examination of the container van and in his Examiner’s Return noted that
the shipment contains 1000 bags if 25 kgs sodium Bicarbonate. He
recommended that the shipment be subject to Philippine Chamber and
Industry clearance and magna scale weighing.

4. After receiving the PCCI, Sevilla forwarded the Import Entry papers with
the PPCI Clearance to Tomas P. Tuason, Customs Principal Examiner, Bureau
of Customs and supervisor of Sevilla.

4. Tuason, after checking all the requirements and supporting documents,

forwarded the same to the appraiser’s group. The importer paid duties and
taxes for the shipment in the amount of P22, 972.
5. On the same day that afternoon, the container van was allowed to leave
by the Collector of Customs to be delivered to the consignee (Bornham
Trading). While cruising along Quezon Boulevard, agents of the Special
Operations group, Economic, Intelligence and Investigation Bureau headed
by Benjamin Kho intercepted the 40 feet container van and brought it to
Camp Aguinaldo, QC for proper disposal.

6. Godofredo B. Camina Jr., a customs Examiner assigned to make an

inventory of the container van at Camp Aguinaldo found that the same do
not only contain Sodium Bicarbonate as declared but different goods and
articles. The examiner determined that the correct duties and taxes that
may be assessed on the shipment amounted to P 1,643,057.

7. Special Agent Marcos De Mesa of Customs Intelligence and Investigation

Service, Bureau ofCustoms verified that the address of Bornham Trading
was non-existent.

8. Special Prosecution Officer III Wilfredo R. Orencia filed with the

Sandiganbayan 2 informations against Sevilla and Remigio for violations of
the provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (CC 16772
an 16773)

LOWER COURT RULINGS:

Sandiganbayan rendered a decision acquitting Arthur G. Sevilla , Jr. in the

Criminal cases filed.

The bail bond posted by the accused for his provisional liberty is cancelled

CC 16772 is dismissed with respect to Remigio

CC 19773, remigio is found guilty of violation of Sec. 3602 in relation to

3601 of the Tariff and Customs Code, sentence to suffer imprisonment of 8
years and 1 day to 12 years as maximum and to pay P8,000. His license as
customs broker is likewise ordered revoked.

ISSUES:

WON Remigio is guilty of violation of Section 3602 in relation to 3601 of the

Tariff and Customs Code.
SUPREME COURT RULING:

No.

Section 3602 of the Tariff Customs Code enumerates the various fraudulent
practices against customs revenue, such as :

- The entry of imported or exported articles by means of any false or

fraudulent invoice, statement or practice.

- The entry of goods at less than the true weight or measure.

The filing of any false or fraudulent entry for the payment of drawback or
refund of duties.

The term ‘entry’ in customs law has a triple meaning: (1) the documents
filed at the customs house; (2) the submission and acceptance of the
documents; (3) the procedure of passing goods found to be fictitious.

Section 3601 provides that: “… Any person who shall fraudulently import or
bring into the PH, or assist in so doing, any article , contrary to law, or shall
receive, conceal, buy, sell, or in any manner facilitate the transportation,
concealment, or sale of such article after importation, knowing the same to
have been imported contrary to law, shall be guilty of smuggling and shall
be punished with..”

Accused Erwin C. Remigio, as a customs broker, prepared the entry covering

the shipment based on the bill of lading, the invoice, the packing list , letter
of credit, the import entry declaration and the Central Bank Release
Certificate. The address given was Borham Trading at 37 Harvard Street, QC.
There was nothing in the documents to show that there was anything amiss
in the shipment or covering the documents. A customs broker is not
required to go beyond the documents presented to him in filing an entry on
the basis of such documents.

Also, Remigio dis not fraudulently assist in the importation of any article
contrary to law nor facilitated the transportation, knowing the same to be
contrary to law. All he did was to prepare the import entry based on the
shipping and other documents required by the BOC and file the same.

In Farolan v. CTA it was declared that the fraud contemplated by law must
be actual and not constructive. It must be intentional fraud, consisting of
willfully and deliberately dared or resorted to in order to give up some
right. …”
**********************

SECRETARY OF FINANCE V. ORO MAURA SHIPPING LINES

FACTS:

1. NOVEMBER 24, 1992 - the Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA)

authorized the importation of one (1) unit vessel M/V HARUNA under a
Bareboat Charter for a period of 5 years from it’s actual delivery to the
charterer. The parties to the bareboat charter agreement were HAruna
Maritime S.A represented by Mr. Yoji Morinaga of Panama and Mr. Guerrero
G. Dajao, proprietor and manager of Glory Shipping Lines, the charterer.

2. December 29, 1992 - The DOF, in its 1st endorsement, allowed the
temporary registration of the M/V HARUNA and its tax and duty-free release
to Glory Shipping Lines, subject to the conditions imposed by MARINA,

3. The BOC also required the Glory Shipping Lines to post a bond in the
amount equal to 150% of the duties, taxes and other charges on the
importation of the vessel due on the importation, conditioned in the re-
exportation of the vessel upon termination of the charter period, but in no
case extend beyond the year 1999.

4. March 16, 1993 - GSL posted Ordinary Re-Export Bond conditioned on the
re-export of the vessel within a period of one year from March 23, 1993, or
in case of default , to pay customs duty, tax and other charges on the
importation of the vessel in the amount of P1,296,710.

5. March 22, 1994 - The re-export bond of GSL expired and after two
months, it sent a letter of guarantee to the Collector guaranteeing to renew
the export bond otherwise it will pay the taxes and duties on vessel. GSL
never complied with its letter and neither paid the charges despite
demands.

6. The Collector of Port of Mactan assessed its customs duties amounting to

P1, 952,000, and GSL failed to pay despite the demand letters sent to them.

7. Unknown to the Collector, GSL had already offered to sell M/V HARUNA to
Oro Maura Shipping Lines in October 1992. Oro Maura already applied for
Authority to Import the vessel with MARINA, pegging the proposed
acquisition cost of the vessel at P1,100,000. MARINA granted the request
after finding that the acquisition cost of the vessel reasonable, taking into
consideration the vessel’s depreciation due to wear and tear.

8. December 2, 1994- Haruna Maritime and GSL sold M/V Haruna to Oro
Maura without informing the Collector of the Port of Mactan

9. December 13, 1994 - Kariton and Company, representing Oro Maura,

inquired with the DOF if it could pay the duties and taxes due on the vessel,
with the info that vessel was acquired by GSL and authorized by the DOF to
be released under re-export bond. The letter was referred to the
commissioner on customs and in turn to the Collector of Customs of the
Port of Manila.

10. Collector of the Port of Mactan accepted the declared value of the vessel.
at P1,100,000 and assessed the taxes amounting to ₱149,989 which the
respondent paid evidenced by Bureau of Customs Receipt.

11. November 5, 1997 - Finding that the vessel has been sold, the Collector
of the Port of Mactan sent the respondent a demand letter for the unpaid
customs duties of GSL. When respondent failed to pay, the Collector
instituted seizure proceedings against the vessel for violation of provision
under the Tariff and Customs Code.

12. Collector of Port of Mactan ordered the forfeiture of the vessel in favor
of the government, after finding that GSL and respondent acted fraudulently
in their transaction.

LOWER COURT RULINGS;

The Cebu District Officer reversed the decision of the Collector of Port of
Mactan on the ground that no proof that respondent was a party to the
fraud.

The Commissioner on Customs affirmed the decision of the District

Collector on its 3rd endorsement, recommending it’s approval to the
petitioner. In a 4th endorsement, petitioner affirmed the recommendation
of the Commissioner but ordered re-assessment of the vessel based on the
entered value, without allowance for depreciation. The Motion for
Reconsideration filed by respondent was denied.
Respondent filed with the CTA which granted the petition and set aside the
4th endorsement, affirming the previous decision of the Commissioner of
Customs. The Motion for Reconsideration filed by the petitioner was denied.

ISSUES;

A. WON there was fraud in the transaction entered into by the Glory
Shipping Lines and the respondent

B. WON A lien in favor of the government against vessel exists

SC RULING;

A. Yes. The SC appreciated 4 significant phases:

1. The original tax and duty-free entry of MV Haruna when GLS filed Import
Entry with the Collector of the Port of Mactan. It declared a dutiable value of
P6, 171,092 and an estimated customs duty of P1, 296,710. It was allowed
conditional entry on the basis of a one-year re-export bond that lapsed and
was not renewed despite letter of guaranty and letter of demands.

2. GLS offered to sell to ORO the vessel. ORO applied for Authority to Import
the vessel and Marina granted the request based on the proposed
acquisition cost, taking into consideration the depreciation.

3.Respondent’s representative inquired with the DOF if it can pay the duties
and taxes on the vessel knowing fully well of he status of it and paid it as
approved by the Collector of Port of Manila. No notice was given to the Port
of Mactan as the port that allowed the entry of the vessel into the country
and which had the existing demand letters for the customs duties and
charges due on the vessel.

4. Collector of the Port of Mactan acted after learning of the sale of the
vessel to the respondent and eventually instituted seizure proceedings.

From the 1st and 2nd phase, bad faith already exists as GSL, instead of
paying taxes in accordance with its commitment, simply disregarded the
letters and offered the vessel for sale. The respondent on the other hand
knew of the status of the vessel.

Also, after the respondent proposed an acquisition cost of P1,100,000,

Kariton also declared the same value with its own import entry filed with
the Collector of Port of Manila. After a year and a half, the value of the
vessel decreased to 80% of the original price. The drop alone was already a
prima facie evidence of fraud. Under Section 2503 of the TCCP provides that
…undervaluation, misdeclaration in weight, measurement or quantity of
more that 30% between that was declared in the entry shall constitute prima
facie evidence of fraud penalized under 2530 of the code..”. The drop
renders the consideration and application of Section 2503 unavoidable.

B. When the re-export bond expires, GLS committed to renew the bond or
otherwise pay the duties, taxes and other charges. The failure to renew
resulted to the obligation to pay the taxes and an amount of P1, 296, 710
arose and attached to the vessel. Hence, a lien was never paid by GLS and
continued to exist even when the same was sold to the respondent.

Section 1204: Unless relieved by laws or regulation, the liability for duties,
taxes, fees and other charges attaching on importation constitutes a
personal debt due from the importer. To the government which can only be
discharged only by full payment in full of all the duties, taxes and other
charges legally accruing. It also constitutes a lien upon the articles imported
which may be enforced while such articles are in custody of subject to the
control of the government.

What is a lien? It is a claim or charge for payment of some debt, obligation

or duty. In particular instance, It is attached to imported goods, regardless
of ownership.

While it is true that the respondent had paid the customs duties assessed by
the Collector of Port of Manila, the payment did not have the effect of
extinguishing the lien that attached to the vessel, the fact that what was
paid was different from the on what was owed. What was only paid was
P149, 989 while the lien that was attached based on unpaid assessment by
the Collector of the Port of Mactan amounted to. P1,296, 710.

********************

THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS V. INTERLINK RECYCLERS PHILIPPINES, INC

Facts:

1. 1966- Congress passed RA 4653 prohibiting the commercial importation

of textile articles commonly known as used clothing or rags.
2. 1992 - congress passed RA 7227 creating the Subic Special Economic Zone
as a separate customs territory and providing incentives to investors.

3. Interlink Recyclers PH., Inc Entered into a lease agreement with the Subic
Bay Metropolitan Authority (SMBA) pursuant to RS 7227. It acquired a
certificate of registration to bring in remnant garments, used clothes and
rags to the Freeport Zone for segregation, grading classification , sorting,
baling and 100% exportation to other countries.

4. July 1 2015- BOC issued Tariff Decision Circular to enforce RA 4653

arguing that the circular applies to Interlink even though its business is
located in a Freeport Zone.

5. Interlink filed a complaint for declaratory relief assailing the applicability

of the Circular within the Freeport Zone, arguing the BOC has no jurisdiction
to restrict the free flow of goods because Freeport Zone is not part of its
customs territory.

LOWER COURT RULINGS:

1. RTC declared the Circular invalid:

On procedural aspect, declaratory relief is the correct remedy to challenge

the circular’s validity because:

1. There is a judicial controversy

2. The controversy is between persons whose interests are adverse

3. Interlink has a legal interest in the controversy

4. The issue is ripe for adjudication

5. Interlink has not breached or violated the Circular.

On substantive aspect, the circular violated the right of Interlink as

aFreeport Zone investor. Pursuant to RA 7227, the Freeport Zone is a
separate customs territory and import of remnant garments, used clothing
and rags is allowed. Hence the lease agreement of SMBA and Interlink is
valid.

ISSUES:

A. WON the Circular 01-2015 enforcing RA 4563 applies to the Freeport

Zone.
SC RULING:

A. No.

The prohibition under RA 4653 is applicable only within customs territory,

which excludes the Freeport Zone. Customs territory is defined as a portion
of the PH outside the Freeport Zone where the Tariff and Customs Law are
in effect. Pursuant to RA 7227, Freeport is designated as a separate customs
territory. Enrile explained that this portion of the PH territory is carved out
and considered foreign territory for customs or importation purposes.
Hence the goods allowed in the Freeport Zone are outside the customs
jurisdiction of the PH unless the good are brought into domestic commerce.

In the present case, Interlink imports the used clothing into the Freeport
Zone and exports them to other countries. These products do not enter
customs territory. hence, it is not covered by prohibition.

Although the importation of used clothes is prohibited by law, specifically

RA 4653, the prohibition is not absolute. A prohibition is absolute if it is
free from limitations, restrictions or exception. In RA 4652 however, states
that importation of textile articles is prohibited except those imported
under certain provision in 1937. Since prohibition is not absolute , the
general rule applies. Hence, the importation of Interlink’s products into the
Freeport Zone is allowed.

The prohibition intends to safeguard people’s health and to maintain the

nation’s dignity. The products of Interlink will not even enter the customs
territory as to affect the domestic market.

********************