Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
FACTS:
Collector Sabino Rigor issued a Warrant of Seizure and Detention against the vessel
LCT-759 and its cargo, consisting of 103 pieces of logs for failure to present a manifest
for the said logs within the period prescribed. The parties who were duly notified and
represented, voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the respondent Collector. After
hearing, the Collector rendered a decision ordering the seized logs forfeited in favor of
the government to be disposed of according to law.
Instead of appealing the Collectors decision to the Commissioner of Customs, the
private respondents filed an original petition for certiorari with the Davao CFI.
Respondent alleged lack of jurisdiction of the CFI.
ISSUE:
effective enforcement of customs and tariff laws. Customs officials cannot stand by
helplessly for want of jurisdiction simply because a restrictive interpretation of port of
entry would enable coastwise vessels to load or unload unmanifested goods with
impunity outside of the specific area where the wharves and the customs house are
located.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruled that the customs officials have authority under
the law to make the initial determination on the limits of their administrative jurisdiction,
to act speedily and to make decisions on the basis of that determination, and to have
such act or decision reviewable only in the manner provided by the Customs and Tariff
Code. The Collectors decisions are appealable to the Commissioner of Customs,
whose decisions, in cases involving seizure, detention or release of property, may in
turn be reviewed only by the CTA.
Pacis vs pamaran
FACTS:
Respondent Ricardo Santos is an owner of a car which he bought from a tax-exempt individual. He paid
P311.00 for customs duty and taxes. Pedro Pacis, the Acting Collector of Customs, received a letter stating
that Santos' car was a hot car. The amount collectible was P2,500.00, not just P311.00.
Based on such discrepancy, Pacis instituted seizure proceedings and issued a warrant of seizure and
detention. The car was taken by agents who were authorized to do so by virtue of the said warrant. Santos
wrote to Pacis about the seizure. Santos also filed a case of usurpation of authority against Pacis. Manuel
Pamaran, an Assistant Fiscal, proceeded with the charge against Pacis.
ISSUE: Whether Customs Collectors can issue a warrant of seizure and detention.
RULING:
YES. Prohibition against Pamaran is of want. The Tariff and Customs Code does not require said warrant
in the instant case. The Code authorizes persons having police authority under Section 2203 of the Tariff
and Customs Code to such search and seizure. Except in the case of the search of a dwelling house,
persons exercising police authority under the customs law may effect search and seizure without a search
warrant in the enforcement of customs laws. The plenitude of the competence vested in customs officials
is undeniable.
Viduya v berdiago
FACTS:
Respondent Berdiago is the owner of a Rolls Royce car, Model 1966, which arrived in
the Port of Manila on January 8, 1968. However, the petitioner, Jose Viduya, then
Collector of Customs of Manila, obtained reliable intelligence that fraudulent documents
were used by Berdiago in securing the release of the car from the Bureau of Customs,
making it appear therein that the car was a 1961 model instead of a 1966 one, thus
enabling respondent to pay a much lower customs duty.
There was, accordingly, a formal demand for the payment of the sum to cover the
deficiency, respondent manifesting his willingness to do so but failing to live up to his
promise. As the car was kept in a dwelling house at the Yabut Compound, two officials
of the Customs Police Service as duly authorized agents of petitioner, applied to
respondent Judge for a warrant to search said dwelling house and to seize the Rolls
Royce car found therein.
Berdiago filed a motion to quash the search warrant issued by the court based on lack
of probable cause to issue the warrant. Collector Viduya opposed, alleging that
Berdiago could not rely on the constitutional right against unreasonable search and
seizure because it was not shown that he owned the dwelling house which was
searched. Nonetheless, respondent Judge in the challenged order quashed such search
warrant.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
FACTS:
In March 1986, petitioner shipped from Germany to the Philippines two containers, one
with used household goods and the other two used automobiles (one Bourgetti and one
Mercedes Benz). The first container and the Bourgetti car were released by the BOC,
but not the Mercedes Benz, which remained in custody of the Bureau.
Petitioner then received a notice of hearing, informing him that seizure proceedings
were being initiated against the said Mercedes Benz. While this case was pending,
petitioner received a letter from the District Collector of Customs, informing her that a
decision ordering the forfeiture of her Mercedes Benz had been rendered.
Petitioner did not know that the same Mercedes Benz was subject to two different
forfeiture proceedings. He only found out later that the Notice of Hearing for the
forfeiture proceedings before the District Collector was posted on the bulletin board of
the BOC, at Port Area, Manila.
ISSUE:
The Mercedes Benz subject of this case has an engine displacement of over 2,800
cubic centimeters, which clearly falls within the prohibited importation and as such, is
liable for seizure and forfeiture by the public respondents.
Ramos vs pamaran
Farolan vs ca
Transglobe vs ca
Facts: A shipment from Hong Kong arrived at the port of Manila, aboard the
S/S Seadragon. Its inward foreign manifest indicated that it contained
various hand tools. Acting on an information that the shipment violated
provisions of tariff and customs code, the Economic Intelligence and
Investigation Bureau (EIIB) agents seized the shipment while in transit to the
container yard. The EIIB recommended seizure of the shipment, and for which a
warrant of seizure and distraint was issued by the District Collector.
For failure of petitioner, to appear during the hearing despite due notice,
collector decreed the forfeiture of the shipment in favor of the government.