Commissioner of Customs vs AGHFA Incorporated, G.R. No.

187425, March 28, 2011

lapsed, the abandoned shipments were deemed the property

of the government.
Therefore, when petitioner withdrew the oil shipments for
consumption, it appropriated for itself properties which
already belonged to the government. Accordingly, it became
liable for the total dutiable value of the shipments of
imported crude oil amounting to P1,210,280,789.21 reduced
by the total amount of duties paid amounting to
P316,499,021.00 thereby leaving a balance of
P893,781,768.21.

Whether or not AGFHA is entitled to recover the value of the lost

shipment based only on its acquisition cost at the time of
importation
Tariff and Customs Code; Bureau of Customs; liability for lost
shipment. The owner is entitled to recover the value of its lost shipment
based on the acquisition cost at the time of payment. In the case of C.F.
Sharp and Co., Inc. vs Northwest Airlines, Inc., the Court ruled that the
rate of exchange for the conversion in the peso equivalent should be the
prevailing rate at the time of payment. In said case, the Court cited the
case of Zagala vs. Jimenez and said that under Republic Act No. 529,
as amended by RA No. 4100, stipulations on the satisfaction of
obligations in foreign currency are void. Thus payments of monetary
obligations, subject to certain exceptions, must be discharged in the
currency which is the legal tender in the Philippines. However, since
RA No. 529 does not provide for the rate of exchange for the payment
of foreign currency obligations incurred after its enactment, the Court
held in a number of cases that the rate of exchange for the conversion
in the peso equivalent should be the prevailing rate at the time of
payment. Also, in the case of Republic of the Philippines represented
by the Bureau of Customs vs UNIMEX Micro-Electronics GmBH,
which involved the seizure and detention of a shipment of computer
game items which disappeared while in the custody of the Bureau of
Customs, the Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals holding
that the petitioners liability may be paid in Philippine currency,
computed at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of actual
payment.

CHEVRON PHILIPPINES, INC., VS. COMMISSIONER OF THE

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, [G.R. No. 178759, August 11, 2008]

ISSUES:
1

Whether or not entry under Section 1301 in relation to

Section 1801 of the TCC refers to the IED or the IEIRD;

Whether or not "entry" under Section 1301 in relation to

whether fraud was perpetrated by petitioner and

Whether or not the importations can be considered

abandoned under Section 1801.

RULING:
1

The position of petitioner, that the import entry to be filed

within the 30-day period refers to the IED (Import Entry
Declaration) and not the IEIRD (Import Entry and Internal
Revenue Declaration), has no legal basis. Under the relevant
provisions of the TCC, both the IED and IEIRD should be
filed within 30 days from the date of discharge of the last
package from the vessel or aircraft. 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 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. The "specified entry form"
refers to the IEIRD. The word "entry" refers to the regular
consumption entry (the IEIRD) and not the provisional entry
(the IED).
Evidence showed that petitioner bided its time to file the
IEIRD so as to avail of a lower rate of duty. A clear indication
of petitioner's deliberate intention to defraud the government
was its non-disclosure of discrepancies on the duties declared
in the IEDs (10%) and IEIRDs (3%) covering the shipments.
Due to the presence of fraud, the prescriptive period of the
finality of liquidation under Section 1603 was inapplicable.

Due notice was not necessary in this case. The purpose of

posting an "urgent notice to file entry" is only to notify the
importer of the "arrival of its shipment" and the details of
said shipment. Since it already had knowledge of such, notice
was superfluous. Notice to petitioner was unnecessary
because it was fully aware that its shipments had in fact
arrived. The oil shipments were discharged from the carriers
docked in its private pier or wharf, into its shore tanks. From
then on, petitioner had actual physical possession of its oil
importations. It was thus incumbent upon it to know its
obligation to file the IEIRD within the 30-day period
prescribed by law. As a matter of fact, importers such as
petitioner can, under existing rules and regulations, file in
advance an import entry even before the arrival of the
shipment to expedite the release of the same. However, it
deliberately chose not to comply with its obligation under
Section 1301.

Commissioner of Customs vs. Marina Sales, Inc., G.R. No. 183868,

November 22, 2010
Court of Tax Appeals; petition for review with Court of Tax Appeals en
banc; motion for reconsideration mandatory. Rule 8, Section 1 of the
Revised Rules of Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) requiring that the
petition for review of a decision or resolution of the Court in Division
must be preceded by the filing of a timely motion for reconsideration or
new trial with the Decision is mandatory. The word must clearly
indicate the mandatory- not merely directory- nature of a requirement.
The rules are clear. Before the CTA En Banc could take cognizance of
the petition for review concerning a case falling under its exclusive
appellate jurisdiction, the litigant must sufficiently show that it sought
prior reconsideration or moved for a new trial with the concerned CTA
division. Procedural rules are not to be trifled with or be excused
simply because their non-compliance may have resulted in prejudicing
a partys substantive rights. Rules are meant to be followed. They may
be relaxed only for very exigent and persuasive reasons to relieve a
litigant of an injustice not commensurate to his careless non-observance
of the prescribed rules. .
Jardeleza vs. People of the Philippines
Issues:
THE HONORABLE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 3601 OF THE TARIFF AND
CUSTOMS CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (TCC) WHEN THE
FACTS ALLEGED BOTH IN THE INFORMATION AND THOSE
SHOWN BY THE PROSECUTION CONSTITUTE THE OFFENSE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 2505 OF THE TCC, OF WHICH
THE ACCUSED WAS ACQUITTED.
ASSUMING MOREOVER THAT THE CHARGE AND PROOF ARE
COVERED UNDER SECTION 3601 OF THE TCC, THE
HONORABLE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DISREGARDING
CUSTOMS MEMORANDUM ORDER NOS. 40 AND 53 AND THE
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSTRUCTION PLACED UPON THE
PERTINENT PROVISIONS OF THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS
CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES BY CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES.
HELD

Petitioner's failure to file the required entries within a nonextendible period of thirty days from date of discharge of the
last package from the carrying vessel constituted implied
abandonment of its oil importations. This means that from the
precise moment that the non-extendible thirty-day period

In contrast to Section 2505, Section 3601 of the TCC is a penal

provision. It defines the crime of smuggling and provides compound
penalties of graduated fine and imprisonment based on the appraised
values of the imported articles to be determined in the manner provided
in the TCC. There is no conflict between Section 2505 and Section
3601. In point of fact, the two sections and Section 3602 complement
each other.

Certification issued by the Department of Transportation and

Communications (DOTC) Port State Control Center of Manila, and the
letter dated 4 October 2001 issued by the Sub-Port of North Harbor
Collector Edward de la Cuesta, confirming that there was no such
loading of rice or calling of vessel occurring at North Harbor, Manila. It
is, therefore, uncontroverted that the 35,000 bags of imported rice were
smuggled into the Philippines using M/V Neptune Breeze.

Section 3601 of the TCC was designed to supplement the existing

provisions of the TCC against the means leading up to smuggling,
which might render it beneficial by a substantive and criminal
statement separately providing for the punishment of smuggling. The
law was intended not to merge into one and the same offense all the
many acts which are classified and punished by different penalties,
penal or administrative, but to legislate against the overt act of
smuggling itself. This is manifested by the use of the words
"fraudulently" and "contrary to law" in the law.

The penalty of forfeiture is imposed on any vessel engaged in

smuggling, provided that the following conditions are present:

Smuggling is committed by any person who: (1) fraudulently imports

or brings into the Philippines any article contrary to law; (2) assists in
so doing any article contrary to law; or (3) receives, conceals, buys,
sells or in any manner facilitate the transportation, concealment or sale
of such goods after importation, knowing the same to have been
imported contrary to law.72
Importation consists of bringing an article into the country from the
outside.75 The crime of unlawful importation is complete, in the
absence of a bona fide intent to make entry and pay duties when the
prohibited article enters Philippine territory.76 Importation is complete
when the taxable, dutiable commodity is brought within the limits of
the port of entry. Entry through a customs house is not the essence of
the act.77
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.82 Customs declaration forms or customs
entry forms required to be accomplished by passengers of incoming
vessels or passenger planes are envisaged in the section.
There is thus no conflict between Sections 2505, 3601 and 3602 of the
TCC. In point of fact, the three provisions complement each other.
The bare fact that, under the second paragraph of the Information,
petitioner is alleged to have imported the jewelry into the country by,
inter alia, not declaring it in the customs declaration form, it cannot
thereby be concluded that she was being charged of a crime under
Section 2505 of the TCC. The acts alleged therein are descriptive of the
fraudulent manner petitioner imported her jewelries into the country.
Petitioner was mandated to indicate in the Customs Declaration Form
that she had jewelry in her possession to be imported into the country
valued at more than US$350.00. Worse, when asked by Nario if she
had goods or articles to declare, she spontaneously answered "No."
Petitioners intentional concealment or nondisclosure that she had such
jewelry items in the leatherette bags constituted fraud under Sections
3601 and 3602 of the TCC, aimed at depriving the government of
customs revenue.
El Greco vs Commissioner of Customs
WHETHER OR NOT M/V NEPTUNE BREEZE IS QUALIFIED TO
BE THE SUBJECT OF FORFEITURE UNDER SECTION 2531 OF
THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE
There is no question that M/V Neptune Breeze, then known as M/V
Criston, was carrying 35,000 bags of imported rice without the
necessary papers showing that they were entered lawfully through a
Philippine port after the payment of appropriate taxes and duties
thereon. This gives rise to the presumption that such importation was
illegal. Consequently, the rice subject of the importation, as well as the
vessel M/V Neptune Breeze used in importation are subject to
forfeiture. The burden is on El Greco, as the owner of M/V Neptune
Breeze, to show that its conveyance of the rice was actually legal.
Unfortunately, its claim that the cargo was not of foreign origin but was
merely loaded at North Harbor, Manila, was belied by the following
evidence - the Incoming Journal of the Philippine Coast Guard,

1.) The vessel is used unlawfully in the importation or

exportation of articles into or from the Philippines;
2.) The articles are imported to or exported from any
Philippine port or place, except a port of entry; or
3.) If the vessel has a capacity of less than 30 tons and is
used in the importation of articles into any Philippine port or
place other than a port of the Sulu Sea, where importation in
such vessel may be authorized by the Commissioner, with the
approval of the department head.2
SEC. 2313. Review of Commissioner. The person aggrieved by the
decision or action of the Collector in any matter presented upon protest
or by his action in any case of seizure may, within fifteen (15) days
after notification in writing by the Collector of his action or decision,
file a written notice to the Collector with a copy furnished to the
Commissioner of his intention to appeal the action or decision of the
Collector to 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: Provided, That when an appeal is filed beyond
the period herein prescribed, the same shall be deemed dismissed.
If in any seizure proceedings, the Collector renders a decision adverse
to the Government, such decision shall be automatically reviewed by
the Commissioner and the records of the case elevated within five (5)
days from the promulgation of the decision of the Collector. The
Commissioner shall render a decision on the automatic appeal within
thirty (30) days from receipts of the records of the case. If the
Collectors decision is reversed by the Commissioner, the decision of
the Commissioner shall be final and executory. However, if the
Collectors decision is affirmed, or if within thirty (30) days from
receipt of the record of the case by the Commissioner no decision is
rendered or the decision involves imported articles whose published
value is five million pesos (P5,000,000.00) or more, such decision
shall be deemed automatically appealed to the Secretary of
Finance and the records of the proceedings shall be elevated within
five (5) days from the promulgation of the decision of the
Commissioner or of the Collector under appeal, as the case may be:
Provided, further, That if the decision of the Commissioner or of the
Collector under appeal as the case may be, is affirmed by the Secretary
of Finance or if within thirty (30) days from receipt of the records of
the proceedings by the Secretary of Finance, no decision is rendered,
the decision of the Secretary of Finance, or of the Commissioner, or of
the Collector under appeal, as the case may be, shall become final and
executory.
In any seizure proceeding, the release of imported articles shall not be
allowed unless and until a decision of the Collector has been confirmed
in writing by the Commissioner of Customs. (Emphasis ours.)
There is nothing in Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code to
support the position of El Greco. As the CTAen banc explained, in case
the BOC Commissioner fails to decide on the automatic appeal of the
Collectors Decision within 30 days from receipt of the records thereof,
the case shall again be deemed automatically appealed to the Secretary
of Finance. Also working against El Greco is the fact that jurisdiction
over M/V Neptune Breeze, otherwise known as M/V Criston, was first
acquired by the Legaspi District Collector; thus, the Manila District
Collector cannot validly acquire jurisdiction over the same vessel.
Judgment rendered without jurisdiction is null and void, and void
judgment cannot be the source of any right whatsoever.28