CTA Case No. 6006 (Decision)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPI S COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY � PACASIRANG BATIDOR & MY "HENNESY" PHILIPPINES DIAMOND CRUISER CORPORATION (PDCC), 24,000 mo��e or less unmarked Bags of Imported Suga��, Petitioners, -versus- c :r.A. CASE NO. 600(, BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, AND THE DISTRICT Promulgated: COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF CAGAYAN AUG 24 2001 DE ORO CITY, IJP.Urld!:'/~-f~ Respo ndents. X X-----------------~------------------------- - - -------------- DECISION Before Us is a Petition for Review which seeks the reversal or se tting aside of th e decision of the Bureau of Customs elated October 11 , 1999 whic h a lTirmecl in toto th c decision of the District Collector of Customs, Port of Cagayan de Oro elated January 26, 1999, which ordered the forfeiture of the cargo of 24,000 more or less unmarked bags ol� imported sugar on board M/V " HENN ESY" in fav or of the Go vc rnment of the Republi c of the Philippines for violation of Section 2530 paragraphs a, f, k and I nos. 1, 2 and 5 or the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP), as amended. Petitioner, Pacasiran g A. Baticlor (Baticlor) represented th ;1 t he is duly reg istered and licensed to operate as a Sugar Trader by the Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) and doing business under the name and style, Batidor General Me rchandise, and is th e claimant of the subject cargo consi sting of 24,000 bags of unm a rked sugar. As a dul y \) '.J' ., \. J ._)

D EC ISION - CT/\ CA SE NO. 6006 PAG E 2 licen sed Sugar Trader, he was commi ss ioned by the Re bel 1\c turn ces Association o f Lanao del N o rte to engage in the business o f tradin g prime com moditi es such as sugar, rice, flour , groceri es, e tc. for the benefit of the members and fam il y o f the rebel reJyrnees. For this purpose, they poo led their resources initi all y to fin ance the purchase of sugar in wholesale quantity and to retail them to its membe rs for a reaso nable margin of pro fit. Consequentl y, durin g the peri od from the las t week o f October 1998 to th e middle part of November 199 8, Batidor all egedl y bo ught sugar from loca l trade rs in Co tabato using the fin ancial reso urces poo led by th e Rebel Returnees Associati on of Lanao del Norte. He was, thus, able to purchase a total of twe nty four th ousand (24,000) bags of sugar, more or less, Jl�01n twe nty eight (2 8) loca l traders in Co tabato. The bags of sugar were then directl y tra nsported from the bodega of th e se llers and loaded on board th e vesse l M/V " HENNESY" w hich Batid or charte red from the Philippine Diamond C rui ser Corporatio n (PDCC). Records show th at on November II , 1998, the vessel MIV " H ENNES Y" loaded with 24, 000 bags of unm arked sugar left the Port o f Cotabato bound for N abilid, Roxas, Zamboanga del Norte and docked at the wharJ' of its destinati on, in th e evenin g of the same day. On Nove mber 12, 1998, w hil e in th e process of unl oadin g the bags o f suga r, a composite team of the NBI , Bureau o f C ustoms, Philippine Na ti o nal Po lice and th e Intelli gence Group of th e AF P, acting on intelli ge nce informa tio n, se ized th e vessel and its ca rgoes by virtue o f a Warrant o f Se izure and De tcJLion (W S D) iss ued on November 11 , 1998 by the Distri ct Co ll ector of th e Port of Cagayan de O ro (Jo int Affid avit of A pprehension/ Se iz ure, p. 352, CI A Reco rd s).

DEC ISION- CTA CASE NO. 6006 PAGE 3 The WSD was personall y served by the Di strict Comm ander of the Enfo rcemciit and Security Service of the Bureau of C ustoms, to the Mas ter of the vessel� MIV "H ENNES Y," Capt. A nge l Valdehueza. Pe nding seiz ure proceed ings, th e 24,000 bags of sugar we re all owed to be di scharged from th e vessel a nd we re trans!Crred to the wa reho uses of the Na ti o nal Food Autho rity (NFI\) in Dipo log C ity, whil e th e vesse l MIV " II ENNESY" was tra ns!Crrcd from the Po rt o f Pu kawan, Za mboanga del Norte to th e Port o f Cagaya n de Oro w here it anchored o n N ovember 24 , 1998. On December I0 and I I , 1998, hearin gs we re conducted at th e Cagayan de Oro Customhouse on the seizure and forfe iture of the 24,000 bags of the a lleged imported sugar and the carrying vessel M/V " HENN ESY," docketed as Seizure Identifi cati on No. 12-98. Coro llary thereto, the Muni cipal Tri al Co urt of Roxas, Zamboanga del No rte issued a Reso luti on fin di ng probab le ca use fo r vio latio n of Secti on 360 I of the TCCP, ;1 s am ended. On Janua ry 26, 1999, the Di stri ct Co ll ector of Cu<;to ms rendered a decision which rul ed th at a v io lati on of Secti on 2530 paragrap hs a, f, k, and I nos. I . 2 anJ 5 of tl�-.: T CCP, as amended was co mmitted (see pages 37 1 to 374, C ust om~ Records, Vo lume I). Furth erm ore, the subj ect cargoes and carrying vessel were orde red fo rfe ited in favo r of the Gove rnm ent o f the Republic of the Phili pp ines, to be <.l isposed of in acco rda nce w ith law, the di spositi ve porti on of which reads, thus: "WHEREFORE , premi ses considered and by virt ue of th e authority ves ted in me under the Tari ff & C ustoms Code of the Phili ppines, as amended, it is hereby ordered and dec reed th at th e vesse l M/V " llenncsy" and its cargo o f Twenty Four Thousand (24,000) more or less unma rked bags of imported suga r subj ect o f thi s proceed in g.,) be, as they a re fo rfei ted 1 ( ) I " l J j ...

DEC ISION - CTA CA SE N O. 6006 PA GE4 in favor of the Government o f the Republi c of the Philippines, to be disposed o f in the manner provided for by law. Let co pi es o f thi s decision be furni shed the cl aimants or their co unse ls a t their g ive n addresses. SO ORDERED." The said decision was separately appealed by Batid or as claimant of the cargo, ami PDCC as claimant of the vessel M/ V " HENN ES Y." Decidin g on the appeal fil ed by PDCC, Deputy Commi ss ioner of Customs Emm a M . Rosqueta modifi ed the decision of the Di strict Co ll ector o f C ustoms in he r deci sion dated April 20, 1999 (see pages 409 to 416, C ustoms Reco rds, Vo lume 1), th e d ispositi ve portion of which states as foll ows: "WHEREFORE , the appealed decision of the Di stri ct Co ll ector o f C ustoms of Cagayan de Oro is hereby SET ASIDE and MODIFIED, the Warrant o f Sei zure and Detenti o n LIFTED a nd a FINE in th e amo unt o r ONE HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND AND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY-TWO (P150,872.00) PESOS, imposed against the vessel M/ V " Hennesy" and upon pay ment of th e said FINE th e vessel M/ V " 1-lennesy" shall be forthwith released and all li a biliti es which may or mi ght attach to said properly by virtue of the o liense which was the occasion o f the seiz ure a nd all li abilities which have been incurred under an y cash bo nd given by the owner or age nt in res pect to such properly shall th ere upo n be deemed di scharged. SO ORDERED ." Accordingly, the W arrant of Seizure and Detenti on against "M/V H ENN ES Y" was lifted and the vessel was released upon payment by th e owner of the fin e . On October II , 1999, actin g on the appeal fil ed by Batid or w ith respect to the cargo of sugar, the Commi ss ioner o f C ustoms a ffirm ed in toto th e decis io n of th e Di stri c t Coll ector dated January 26, 1999 (see pages 29 to 34, CTA Records), pertine nt portions of which are quoted hereund e r: l Ou tJ

DEC IS ION- CTA CASE NO. 6006 PAGE 5 " The dec ision of th e Di stri ct Co ll ector, Port of Cagayan de Oro is AFFIRM ITO . XXX XXX XXX In the case under considerati on, there is a strong evidence to show that the seized sugar although purchased locall y is of fo reign ori gin. The phys ical appearance of the commodity which is sil very w hite refin ed cane sugar as we ll as the pac kag ing materials (bags) arc of foreign tex tu res. (See Ex hibit " R" and the Examiner/Appraiser Report of Mr. Eva n A . Sano dated l l Janua ry 1999). XXX XXX XXX Probable cause hav ing bee n establi shed by the gove rnm ent prosecutor, the burden of proo f has, th crclorc, bee n shined to the claima nts to show that the seized articl es arc prope rl y covered w ith doc um ents, imported legall y and not subj ect to seizure or dete nti on. XXX XXX XXX The phys ical appearance, tex ture and pac kag ing cl earl y indicate that the sugar is of foreign ori gin . Locall y produ ced sugar does not possess th ese characte ri sti cs. Moreover, Cotobato is not a sugar producing city or province and the possibility that these sugar were produced, milled or shipped from the neighborin g Vi sayan provinces is quite remo te not onl y because of its texture and appearance but also because of its sheer vo lume. XXX XXX XXX WHEREFORE , premi ses co nsidered and by virtue of the auth ority ves ted in me by law, the assa il ed dec ision o f th e Di strict Co ll ector, Port o f Cagayan de Oro is hereby AFFIRMED in toto and th e APPEAL interposed by claimant is DISMISSED for lack of merit. XXX XXX XXX SO ORDERED ." The a (o requ oted decision hav ing bee n rece ived by Pe titi oner on January 5, 2000. il consequentl y fil ed w ith thi s Court the instant Petiti on for Review on Februa ry 4, 2000 . 10\J .~

D EC ISION- CTA CA SE NO. 6006 PAGE6 In assailing the legality o f the forfe iture, Petitioner Batid or averred th at an abuse or discreti on was committed in the iss uance of the Wa rrant of Seizure and Detention. Petitio ne r likewise decl ared th at th e prov isions o f law cited by th e Di strict Co llfctor or Customs speaks o f forfe-iture o f a rti cles the importati on of w hic h have been effected contrary to law . However, Petitioner maintained that at the very onset o f the apprehensions, the se ized shipment o f suga r is of local so urce, hav ing been bo ught in Co tabato. Furthermo re, it presented several rece ipts da'ed betwee n October 20, 199 8 to No vember 2, 1998 which we re all egedl y iss ued by ind ividuals lor th e purchase of bags or sugar in Cotabato C ity. Li kew ise, Deeds of Sale ev idencing the sale o f th e cargoes from sellers in Cotabato to claimant Batidor were presented by Petiti oner. Petitioner contended that the gove rnm ent prosecutor fa iled to prove that the sugar shipment was of foreign origin . It further argued tha t, th e fac t th at th e shi pment wa::, declared as fe rtilize r does not ipso .facto make it of foreign o ri gin absence any showing or positive proof Petiti oner Batid or also maintained that it has in its possession th e Coas tin g Mani fes t prepared by the mas ter of the vessel M/V " He nnesy," whi c h through inadvertence of Petiti oner' s co unsel was not marked and presented du ri ng th e se izure case. Petiti oner further argued th e fact th at the phys ical appearance of the commodity is sil very white refin ed cane as we ll as the di fferent tex ture of the packaging materials. cannot be made the bas is to co nclude that the seized 24,000 bags of sugar are of fo reign ori g in. Moreover, Petiti oner Batid or ave rred that even ass umin g th at the sugar shipment is o f fo reign ori gin, the fac t th at Petiti oner bo ught it fro m a local so urce and in good fai th takes the subj ect shipment outside the coverage of Secti on 2530 of the TCCP, as amended. Petiti oner Batid or cited th e case of America n Express Co. vs. A ldcncs, 47 1 00 2

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 6006 PAGE 7 PHIL 235 where the Supreme Court held , "where the merchandi se impo rted is in th e possession of a third person, holder in good faith and innocent of th e alleged fraud to have been committed by the importer, said merchandise is not subj ect to loc.[eiture. " Thus, Petitioner further advanced the view that the 24,000 bags of sugar cannot be forfeited pursuant to Section 2530 of the TCCP, as amended, there bein g no importation to speak of for what transpired was a legitimate purchase of sugar from Cotabato City. Respondents, on the other hand, filed their Answer with Motion to Dismiss on the following ground: "l. The ground raised by Petitioner in his assignment of error and the arguments in support thereof are merely a rehash of the iss ues raised in his Memorandum on Appeal filed with the Offi ~e of the Commissioner, Bureau of Customs." This Motion to Dismiss was denied in open court during the hear ing held on May 5, 2000 and ordered the setting for pre-trial. Respondents further advanced the view that the importation of the commodity in question, though not per se prohibited, is nevertheless regulated. It maintained that there was a strong evidence to show that the seized sugar, although purchased locally is of' foreign origin. This conclusion was based on the physical appearance of the commodity which is silvery white refined cane sugar and the packaging materials appeared to be or foreign texture. As such, it was incumbent upon claimant to show proof that th e importation of the subject sugar was made in accordance with existing rules, regulations, and policy of the Sugar Regulatory Authority (SRA). The claimant should have presented the following documents, to wit: SRA Authority to Import, the SGS Clean Report of Findings, the Commercial Invoice, Packing List and the Import Entry if it was

DEC ISION - CTA CA SE NO. 6006 PA GE S entered 111 another port. Moreo ver, the domestic tra ll"port o f sugar from one port to another al so requires a shipping permit from the SRI\ indi catin g th e re in whether or not the s ugar is of fore ign source and if o f fore ign so urce, th en the shippe r has to suhmit th e Authority to Import, the name o f the importer/consignee, th e quantity and the amount o f duties and taxes paid on the importati on. However, Petiti oner fail ed to produce an y o f the aforementioned documents. Res pondents furth er mainta ined th at c la imant produ ced vari ous rece ipts a nd deeds of sal e purportedl y to show th at th e sugar was proc ured from the local trade rs in Cotabato C ity. Ho wever, upon examination o f the receipts, Rcsp.Jnd ents found out th at th ey were written on mere pieces of paper and/or on printed "rece ipts" whi ch we re not o ffi c ia l receipts required by the BIR indicatin g th e Offi c ia l Receipt N umber, the na me of the trader, VAT exemption, if an y, tax identiJi cati on and other offi cia l data. Thus. Respond ents conc luded that these receipts were clea rl y manufactured and th erefore, spurious, which were se lf-serving and with no probati ve value. In vi ew of the fact that Petiti oner's co un se l manifested th at he is no longer . presentin g an y oth er ev idence and is submitting th e case lo r dec ision base d on the stipulation of fa cts by th e parties, and since Res pond ent 's counsel has no t indi cated any obj ection thereto, the case was deemed s ubmitted fo r decision on May 18 , 200 I . The iss ues whi ch have bee n j o intl y stipul ated and w hi ch arc bro ught for O u consideration are: I. WH ETH ER OR NOT PRO BA BLE CAUSE EX ISTS T O JU STIFY TH E ISSSU ANCE OF THE WARRANT OF SE IZU RE AND DET ENTION AG A IN ST TH E SU BJ ECT S HIPMENT UNDER SECTION 2535 OF TH E TA RIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE OF THE PHILIPPIN ES, AS A MENDED.

DEC IS ION - CT/\ CAS E NO. 6006 PA GE9 2. WHETHER .OR NOT TH E SU BJ ECT SHIPMENT CONS ISTING OF 24,000 BAGS OF SUGA R A RE OF FO REIGN ORIGIN ENTERED WITHOUT SUPPORTIN G DOCU MENTS AND THEREFORE SU BJ ECT TO SEIZU RE AN D FOR f<E lT URE. After a consc ienti ous and judic ious rev iew of th e reco rd s, th e Co urt hereby rul es in fa vo r o f the Rcs po nd c11ts. Secti on 253 0 o f th e TCC P, as a mended prov ides, as fo ll ows: "SEC. 2530. Property Subject to FOI:I eiture Under 'J'ar(ff and Customs Law. - Any vehi cle, vesse l or a irc raft, cargo, arti c le a nd othe r o bj ects sha ll , under the fo ll owin g co nditi ons be subj ected to forfe iture. a. Any ve hi cle, vessel or a irc raft, inc ludi ng cargo, w hich sha ll be used unl awfull y in the importati on or exportati on of articles or in co nvey ing and/o r transpo rting contraband or smuggled articles in co mmerc ia l quantiti es into or fro m any Philippine port or place. The mere carrying or holding on board of contraband o r smuggled arti c les in co mm erc ial quantities sha ll s ubj ect s uc h vessel, vehi c le, a ircra ft or any other craft to fo rfe iture: Prov ided, That the vessel, or a ircraft or any other cra ft is not used as dul y a uthori zed common carri er and as such a carri er it is no t chartered or lease d ; XXX f. Any arti c le th e im po rtati on or exportati on of w hich is effected or attempted contrary to law, or any article of prohibited importati on or ex portati on, a nd a ll other articles whi ch, in the opinion of the Co ll ector, have bee n used, are or were entered to be used as instrum ents in the im po rtati on or ex portati on of th e forme r; XXX k. Any co nveyance ac tua ll y be in g used for th e tra ns port of articl es s ubj ect to forfe iture un der the ta riff and c ustom s laws, w ith its equipage or trappings, and a ny ve hicl e similarly used, toge the r wi "�h its equipage a nd appurtenances includin g the beast, steam or othe r moti ve

DEC ISION- CTA CASE NO. 6006 PAGE 10 power drawing or propellin g the same. T he m ere conveyance of contraband or smuggled articles by such beast or vehicle shall be suffic ient ca use fo r the outri ght � seizure and confiscati on of such beast or vehicle, but the fo rfe iture shall not be effec ted if it is estab li shed that th-1( owne r of th e mea ns o f conveya nce used as a foresa id . is engaged as co mmo n carri er and not chartered o r leased, or hi s agent in charge the reof at th e time, has no knowledge of the unl awful act:; I. Any a rti cle so ught to be imported or exported. ( I ) Wi thout going through a c ustomhouse, whether th e ac t was consummated, frustrated or atte mpted; (2) By fa ilure to mention to a customs o ffi cial, arti cles fo und in the baggage of a perso n arri ving from abroad; (3) On the strength of a fa lse declarati on or affidav it executed by th e owner, importer, ex porter or consignee concernin g the importati on o f such arti cle; (4) On th e strength of a false in vo ice o r oth er doc ument executed by th e owne r, im porter, ex porte r or consignee concernin g the importati on or ex portati on of such arti cles; and (5) Through any oth er prac tice or device contrary to law by means of which such arti cles we re entered through a customho use to th e prejudice cf the government. " Forfeitures are imposed by the seizure and subsequ ent instituti on of se1zurc proceedings pursuant to Secti on 2532 of th e TCCP , as amended. In seizure cases, one important aspect o f the proceedings in th e considerati on of th e iss ues invo lved, is the duty on th e part of the government of presenting ev idence which indi cates probabl e cause for instituting such proceedings. (Metropolitan Garment Corporation vs. Ramon J. Farolan, Acting Commissioner of Custom s, CTA Case No. .3959, April 16, 1986, citing Sanchez vs. Commissioner of Customs, B.T.A. Case No. 185, November 2, 1954, citing U.S. vs. One Bag of Paradise and Chom�a Feathers, N.Y. 356, F. 301, 167, C.C.A. 473; Associated Banking Cot�ponttion vs. Commiss ioner of Customs, ct. _00 6

DEC ISION- CTA CA SE NO. 6006 PAGE II a l., CTA Case No. 2448, August 6, 1976). The term " probabl e cause" whi ch has been held synon ymous w ith " reasonable cause," means less th an the ev idence w hich will j ustify condemnati on. lt imports a se izure made under the circum stances which_warrant suspicion (Sa nch ez vs. Co mmissioner of C usto ms, su pra, citing Locke vs. Un ited States, 7 C r a uch !U.S. 339]; Asso ciated Ba nkin g Co rpom tion vs. Co m miss ion c�� of C ustoms, supt�a). As clearl y shown from the records o f the case, the subj ect cargo was dec lared in the Coasting Manifest as 24,000 bags of fe rtili zer which is totall y di fferent from the cargo actuall y transported consisting of 24,000 bags of unmarked sugar. Certainl y, there was a mi sdeclaration in the entries in the Coastin g Manifest. Moreove r, there were two (2) Coas tin g Manifests in the reco rd s, bearin g th e same d at~ , N ovembe r 12, 1998 and same signatory, Capt. Valdehueza, but declaring di fferent cargoes. O ne whi ch declared 24,000 bags of fertili ze r, the Coasting Manifest being stamped with the Port of Clearance, Terminal Port o f Cotabato (page 63, Customs Records, Vo lume Ill ). Furthermore, the shipper and consignees stated therein were Alvin 's Ag ri -Product and R & M Enterpri ses, both non-ex istent and thus, fi ctitious. The other Coasting Manifes t declared 24,000 bags of sugar, the shipper and consignee, being Pacasirang Batidor (sec pages 42 and 45, Customs Records, Vo lume Ill). This indeed constituted a prima fac ie ev idence of ; iolati on of the prov is ions of the TCCP, as amended, partic ularl y Secti on 2530 (a), (f), (k) and (1), nos. ( l ) (3) and (5). Jt is worth stressing at thi s point th at probab le cause has been establi shed by the gove rnmen t prosecutor for violati on of Secti on 2530 (a), (f), (k), (1 ), nos. (1 ), (4) & (5) in relation to Section 3601 o f the TCCP, as amended. (Reso luti on dated December 18 , 19n,

DEC ISION- CT A CAS E NO. 6006 PAGE 12 page 91 , C ustoms Reco rd s. Volume Ul) . Secti o n 2535 of th e T CC P, as am ended pro vides, viz: "SEC. 2535. Burden of Proof in Se izure and/or Forf'eiture. - In aU proceedings taken for th e seiz ure and/or fo rfe iture of an y vessel , ve hi c le , a ircraft, beast or articles under the provisions of the tari ff and custo ms laws, the burden of proof sha ll lie upon the cla imant : Provided, That pro bable cause sha ll be first shown for the instituti o n o f such proceedin gs and that seiz ure and/or forfe iture was mad e und er the circumsta nces and in the manner described in the precedin g secti ons o f thi s Code. " As prev io us ly di sc ussed, there hav ing bee n a pro babl e cause , th erefo re , it is incumbent upon Petitioner to prove that hi s alle ga ti o ns arc co rrec t a nd that Res po nd ents' asserti o ns we re w ro ng. Petiti o ner Bati do r, howeve r. tri ed to exc ulpate him se lf by prese nting rece ipts whi ch appeared to be no t re g istered w ith th e Bureau o f Inte rnal Revenue and thu s no t co ns idered offi c ia l rece ipts, th ere fore, w itho ut any pro bati ve va lue as these were me re ly self-se rving. Furthermore, ass umin g that the 24 ,0 00 bags of s ugar we re of local ori g in , the transpo rt of said cargo fro m o ne po rt to ano ther requires a shippin g permit fro m the SRA indi catin g th erein w hether o r no t th e s uga r is of lo re ig n source. Thi s d oc um e nt was no t prese nted by th e Petiti o ne r. Thi s Co urt, likewise, ta kes cogni zance o f th e fact that Co tabato is no t a sugar-produ c in g pro vince a nd thu s co uld not have manufactured such vo luminous stoc ks of s ugar. Petitioner furth er asseverated that in o rd er to support forfe iture, there must be fraud on the part of the o wner of the goods to evade the payment of the duties and tax es clue thereon . Moreover, Pe titi o ner argued that th e misdec larati on in th e Coastin g Manifest does not ipso f acto make it offorei g n ori g in in th e abse nce of pos iti ve proof to suppo rt it. In fact, Pe titi o ner was all egedl y in possess io n of the Coastin g Ma nifes t prepa red by the : oo s

DECISION- CTA CASE NO. 6006 PAG E 13 master of the vessel M/V " 1-IENNESY" but which through inadvertence of claimant's counsel, was not marked and presented during the hearin g of the seizure case. We cannot agree with Petitioner. The events which transpired during the_ seizure proceedings prove that the Coasting Manifest was not inadvertentl y omitted but was in fact withdrawn by Petitioner's counsel. Herei nbelow are excerpts of the hearing of thi s case held on December I I , 1998, to wit: Atty. Fajardo: I would like to manifest that we don ' t possess the original of the exhibits. Hearing Officer: We will admit that temporaril y. Atty. Fajardo: Can I offer my ex hibits? Hearing Orticer: Proceed . Atty. Fajardo: Exhibits " l ," series of receipts up to Ex hibit " l-BB" are being offered to prove that the articles are not sourced from outside. It is from Cotabato containing 28 receipts covering 24,000 bags of sugar. I marked Exhibit "2" yesterday but I would like to withdraw the same exhibit. x x x" (underscoring ours) The Commissioner of Customs opined that " the reason for the withdrawal of th e Coasting Manifest is to avoid the poss ibility of a criminal prosecution for deliberately presenting a forged, falsified or spurious document. The truth is that the ge nuin e

DEC ISION - CTA C/\ SE NO. 6006 PA GE 14 Coasting Manifest fil ed by the Captain o f th e Vessel is marked as Ex hibits "E" and "E- 1" which shows th at the shipment consists o f 24,000 bags of fertili zer, I080 M T ." Since Petiti oner fa iled to prese nt th e required supportin g doc uments wl~ c h ca n convincing ly abrogate th e cloud of suspici on elicited by the Res po ndents , we canno t grant the instant Pe titi on for Rev iew. IN T H E LI GHT OF A LL TH E FOREG OING , the decision of the Commi ssioner o f C ustoms dated October II , 1999 whi ch AFF IRM ED in toto the Deci sion of the Di stri ct Co llector of Customs dated January 26, 1999, w hi ch ordered the forfeiture o f the 24,000 bags of unm arked sugar in favo r of th e gove rnm ent is he reby A FFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED. ~~~C~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Pres iding Judge I CON CU R: CJO#- Associ ate Judge CERTI FICA TIO N I hereby certi fy th at the abo ve dec ision was reached after du e consultati on with th e members of the Co urt o f Tax Appeals in acco rd ance w ith Secti o n 13, Arti cle V I!I o f th e Co ns titution . ~LQ . c~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Judge 1010