CTA Case No. 1451 (Decision)

ILLIDI .4..s:~�1I , !.1. TID ...BDU1 �),SID , C. T. A. Il\ GKOH E~:~!.~~Til.l:~�~ , BAciOh. Lm� ~IH , ,v....'-'.1.0nE N'O� 11't."rJ-1 a nd ~�l OJ..I.nLi..:J:..:.) B:.~.rJ'l'ALIA , Petitioners , - versus - T 1E COHMI,3S I ONER OF CUS TOi�1S , Res,;:>onde nt . X- - - - - - - - -----X DECI S I 0 N This is an appea l from t h e decision of t he Acting Commis s ioner of Customs in Customs Ca se No . 113 , dated September 26 , 1961 , (Jolo Seizure Identification Ca ses Nos . 38 , 39 , 4-o , 4-1 &. ~-2) decreeing t he forfeiture of five ( 5) sailing vess.els ( kumpits) named 11 Iroc- iroc , 11 11 Lahat- 1ahat , tt 11Liberal l ing III , 11 11 ulu !' rea Command," and 11 Business , 11 -vJi t h their respect i ve ca rgoes of blue seal cigarettes and ra tta n cha irs , for viola tion of Sec t ion 1363 (a) of t he Hevised ,\dministra tive Code and Section 20 of Hepublic Act No . 4-26 in relation \vith Cec- tion 1363 (f) of t he Revised .t..dministra tive Ccx:1 e . The f a cts of . t his ca se are not controverted . It a pp ears t :1a t on Septenber 10 , 1950, at about noo n time , a customs pa trol team on boa rd Pa trol Boa t ST- 23 i nter- cepted t be five (5) s aili ng vessels in question in t he high seas , between British l-orth Borneo and Sulu vThile t hey were heading tO\�lards Ta,,i - TavTi , ulu. .After order- ing t he vessels to stop , t he customs of ficers boarded

DECIQION - C. 'r . 1 � CASE NO . 1451 - 2- and found on board 181 cases of 11 ~Iera1du cigarettes, 9 cases of 11 Came111 cigarettes , and some pieces of rattan chairs . 'l'he sailing vessels are all of Philippine registry , owned and l'nanned by Filipino residents of Sulu , and of less than thirty (30) tons bu.rd.en . 'fhey came from Sandal{an , British North Borneo , but did not possess any permit from the Commissioner of Customs to engage in ti1e importation of a1erchandise into any port of the Sulu sea, as required by Section 1363(a) of the Hevis13cl drninistrative Code . Their cargoes vTere not covered by the required import license under Hepublic J-.~.ct No . 426 , othenvise known as the Import Control La'"� Petitioners appealed from the decision of the Col- lector of Customs of Jolo to the Com..missioner of Customs \ vJ"ho affirmed the forraer ' s dec isiot1. The Corrunissioner of Customs declared the vessels and their cargoes forfeited , not only for violation of Sec tion 1363 (a) of the Revised ~~dministra tive Code, but also of Hepublic .t"t.ct I'-:�o . 4-26 in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Hevised Administrative Code . Petitioners ' counsel received the decision of the Commissioner of Custorns on January 4, 1962 . On January 23 , 1962, he allegedly filed with the office of the Com- missioner of Customs a motion for reconsideration which was denied . Counsel received the order of denial on September 3 , 1963 . The instant petition for review in this case was filed on September 14, 1963 o

DECISION - C. T. A. CASE NO . 1451 - 3- The issues raised in this appeal , stripped of non- essentials , may be condensed as follmvs : 1 . ~�!hether or not t he petit ion for review was sea.sonably filed; 2 . :�ro.ether or not t he seizure by customs officers of t he vessels and t he ca r goes in question outside the territorial waters of t h e Philippines \vas legal ; 3 . '!hether or L1ot t he repeal of H.epublic Act No . 426 abated liabilities incurred t hereunder; and 4 o �:lhether or not U1e Commissioner of Cus toms , in revie\.Ji ng a d ecision of t he Collector of Cu stoms , may invok e in his decision a provision of L1v1 , t he viola t ion of wh ich was not charged in t h e d ecision being reviev1ed . vle shall first disp os e of t he jurisdic tional issue o Respondent contends tr.ta t t h e petition for review in t h is case was filed beyond t he 30- day pe r iod prescribed in Section 11 of Republic �lCt No . 1125. It a pp ears t ha t petitioners ' counsel received t he decision of t h e Com- missioner of Customs on January 4, 196'2 . Subsequently , he filed a motion f or t he reconsid era tion of said d ecision and it is t he da te of filing of t h is motion t hat is in dispute o The ori ginal copy of t h e motion ( Exh . 1- B) indica tes t ha t it '~das rec e ived in t he office of t h e le gal counsel of the Bureau of Customs on January 25 , 1962 . If this dr:J. te of receipt ~r1ere correct a s maintained by respondent, then the petition for review would clearly have been filed beyond t h e time limit fixed by law . On t he other II

DECISI ON - C. T. i.. . CASE NO. 1451 - 4- hand , petitioners .argue that they filed the motion on January 23 , 1962 , as indicated on their carbon original (Exh . C-1) , in the office of the Commissioner of Customs with Nr . Salvador Eascardo , an assistant to .the Com- missioner of Customs , who acknowledged :beceipt t hereof (E.xh'. C- 2) o In the hearing of this case, petitioners produced a letter of Hr . Salvador Hascardo addressed to respondent owning the initial appearing in Exhibit C- 2 and further certifying to his receipt of the original copy of the motion in question while he was assistant to the Com- missioner of Customs . From t he evidence presented by both parties , we are convinced that tr1e motion for re- c-::>nsidera tion \vas actually filed on January 23, 1962 in the office of respondent and from t here the said motion was .transmitted to the office of the legal counsel v1here it was stamped received on January 25, 1962o For purposes of the 30- day period set forth in Section 11 of :lepub1ic Act No . 1125, said motion is considered filed on January 23' 1962o Petitionars received the order denying their motion for reconsideration on September 3 , 1963 . They filed the instant petition for review on September 14, 1963 , t he last remaining day allocated to t hem bJ-� law vli t hin \vhich to commence an alJ)eal in this Court . \., e find and so hold that t he instant ap~)eal was seasonably- filed and, t here- fore, ':Je have jurisdiction to entertain the same and de- cide it on the merits . If

DEC ISION - C.T �.A. CASE NOo 1451 - 5- Eavi ng thus d~cided t he first question in t he af- firmative, iile come to t b.e issue -vi;ether or not the seizure by cue toms officers of t he vess els toge t her \vi t h t he ir cargoes in t he hi gh seas was legalo Sec tio n 1363(a) of t he .Revised Admi nistrative Code , i n pursuance a:' which the seizure was made, sta t es: 11Sec . 1363 . - .roperty stJ.bject to forfeiture under customs l.av1s .-Vessels , cargo, merchandise, and other objects and t hings s hall , under the conditions hereinbelow specified, be subject to forfeiture : 11 (a) i ny vessel , includ ing carg o, which shall be unlawfully engaged in the importation of me rchandise into any Phil i pp i ne port or place except a por t of entry; and any vessel which, being of less t han t hirty tons burden, shall be ent;aged in t :1e importation of me rc handis e into any Philippine port or place whatever , except into a port of t he Sulu sea where importa tion in such vessel may be authorized by t he Commissioner , . with t he approval of t he Department Head . " Section 1363(a) , above quoted , contemplates of ~ro instances where a vessel and its cargo may be subject to forfeiture: (1) engaging in t he importation of merchand ise into any Philipp ine port or place except a port of entry ; and (2) when t he vessel is less t han 30 tons burden, en- gaging in t r:e importation of merchandise into a Philipp ine port or place whatever, excep t into a port of t he Sulu sea vJhere importation in suc b Vessel may be authorized by t he Commissioner of Customs \>Ji th the approval of the l Secretary of Finance . The sailing vessels, subject mat- ter in this case being under 30 tons burden , forfeiture was i nvoked under the second :instance. It \vas not s hovrn t hat t he said vessels were duly provided with authorization I

DECISION - C . T.A. C�lSE NO � 1451 - 6- from the Commissioner of Cus tarns approved by the Secretq,ry of Finance to engage in the importation of merchandise into a port in the Sulu sea . In contesting the forfeiture , petitioners maintain that "importation of an article into a country does no t begi n until the importing vessel penetrates the juris- diction of the country concerned , whether it be its ter- restial or fluvial juridiction . 11 tl.nd , since t he vessels in question including their cargoes 11were apprehended and seized in t he high seas , beyond the territorial waters of the Philippines, the said vessels could not have touched any place or port in the .2hilipp i nes , whether a port or place of entry or not , consequently , the said vessels could not have been engaged in the importation of the articles laden therein into any ~hilippine port or place , whether a port or place of entry or not , to have incurred the liability of forfeiture under 'ection 1363(a) of the Hevis ed -..dminis tra tive Code . u O..iemorandum for Petitioners , pp . 6- '7; CTA rec . pp . 62- 7l1-) J.4S succinctly stated in Section 1248 of the Revised ..dministrative Code , the importation of merchandise by sea begins when the importing vessel enters the jurisdic- tional v-1a ters of the Phili1Jp ines 1.vi th t he intention to unlade t herein . ~Je quote ' ection 1248 , to wit : 11SEC . 1248 . ~-ben in:nortation by sea begins and ends .- Importation by sea begins \,lhen the importing vessel enters the jurisdictional 111aters of the ~=>hilipp ines -with t he intention to unlade therein , and is not completed until the duties due upon the nerchandise r~Lve been paid or secured to be paid at a port of entry and the legal permit for vJithdravml shall have been granted , or , in

DECISION - C. T. A. ~ASE NO\.. 1451 - 7- case said merchandise is free of duty , until it has legally left the jurisdiction of the customs . 11 Petitioners theorize that at t he time t he vessels in question were intercepted in t he high seas by c ustoms officers, importation had not yet began . Hence , the vessels could not be held for illegal importation. In short , t here vJas no valid cause for t he seizure . VIe perfectly see t he point of t he petitioners but considering t he �c ircums t cLnces surrounding t he apprehension of t he vessels in question , we believe that Section 1363(a) O- the Hevised .�l.dminis tra tive Code should be ap:,J lied to the case at bar. It has been established that the five vessels came from Sa nda~an , Britis h North Borneo , a foreign port , a~1d vJhen intercepted, all of t hem were heading towards Tawi- tawi , a domes tic port wi thin the Sulu seao Laden with foreign manufac t ured cigarettes , they did not possess the import license required by 3e? ublic ~ct No o 426 , nor did they carry a permit from the Commissioner of Cus toms to engag e in importation into any por t in t he ~ulu sea . 'l'heir cours e announced loudly their intention not merely to s~irt along the territorial boundary of the Philippines but to come wi t hin our limits and land somewhere in Tawi- tawi to�wards w:.1ic 11 their prows were pointed . ~.s a ma tter of fact, t hey \vere a bout to cross I our aquatic boundary but for the intervent ion of a customs patrol which , from all ap)earances, was more than eager to accomplish its mission . l To entertain even for a moment the t hought that

DECISI ON - C. T. A. CrtSE NO 1451 - 8- t t.e se vessels v1ere probably not bound for a Philippine port would be too much a concession even for a simple~ ton or a perennial optimist. It is quite i rrational for Filipino sailors manning five Philipp ine vessels to sneah: out of t he Philip_9 ines and go to :Oritis h Nort~1 Borneo, and come a long T.Jay bac l~ laden vJi t h h i ghly tax- able goods only to turn about upon reaching t he brink of our territorial wa ters and i1ead for another foreign porto 'Je take judicial notice : of the fact t ha t in the Sulu sea s mugglinG from Borneo of foreign r~de cigarettes loa ded in sailing vessels called 11 kumpi ts 11 is rampant . To curb smugg ling , the Government has mus tered pr a ctically all its security agencies such as t he Bureau of Customs , t he Philip) iDe Navy , t he Ph ilipp ine Constabulary , and t he N. l3 oi . to mention only a few . J i dst t his laudable ca mpa i gn , this Court, time and again , has refused to be shackled by technicalities which tend to frustrate the s eizure and subsequent forfeiture of t he subjec t matter and instruments of smuggling . In t he case at bar , the evidence is ovenvh elrning against t he lJ etitione rs . 1;fe a re not inclined to turn our back on t ..e tremendous ef- fort of t he Government to eradicate smuggling and uphold the petitione rs simply because t he vessels in question were i ntercepted a s hor t d istance from t ne territorial boundary . 11.toreover , it is t pe du ty of t he Bureau of Customs to / I

DECISION - C. T. A. CASE NO. 1451 - 9- prevent and suppress smuggling and other frauds upon the customs (Sees . 1139(h) & 1250, Rev . Adm. Code) , and in the exercise of said duty, its jurisdiction extends to areas of the high seas contiguo~s to the territorial waters of the Philippines where t he prevention of smuggling ' , of merchandise by sea could be effectively effected by apprehending and seizing the incoming vessels prior to their entry into Philippi ne waters . We come now to the question whether or not the repeal of Republi c Act No . 426 , otherwise known as the Import Control Law , abated liabilities incurred thereunder . Peti - tioners argue that pursuant to the opinion of the Sec- retary of Justice No . 138 , Series of 1953 , liabilities incurred under Republic Act No . 426 abated when said law was repealed by Republic Act No . 650 on July 1, 1951. Re spondent believes otherwise . Republic Act No . 426 was repealed by Republic Act No . 650 . Both laws required an import ~. lic ense before any person c ould import commodities into the Philippines . Violation of this re- quirement subjected the commodities to forfeiture under both laws . It is thus clear that the repeal of Republic Act No. 426 did not extinguish liabilities incurred under it for the repealing law, in effect , did not totally abrogate the requirements , penalties and liabilities pro- vided for therein . However , Re~ublic Act No . 650 expired by its own provision on June 30, 1953 . On the same question , our Supreme Court said : "x x x the expiration of the Import Control Law did not produce the effect of declaring lega l

'i I DECISI ON - C. T.A. CASE No � 1451 - 10 - the importation of goods wh ich were ille gally imported and t he seizure and forfeiture thereof as ordered by the Collec tor of Customs illegal or null and void . 11 (Golay- Buchel & Cie . vs . Commissioner of Customs , G. R. No . 1- 10994, Dec . 29, 1959) ,;;e see no cogent reason in this case to 1.1 arrant a deviation from the above- quoted ruling of the Supreme Courto Lastly , it is contended by petitioners that the Com- missioner of Customs canno't declare the forfeiture of the - vessels and cargoes in question under Sec tion 1363(f) of the Hevised Administrative Code inasmuch as the said properties were not libeled under said provision in the proceedings before the Collector of Customs, in the exercise of his appellate power , may affirm, reverse or modify a decision of a subordina te officer on issues otl1er than those raised on appeal as long as his find ings and conclusions are SUp,;.JOrted by evidence . In a similar case, 1tJe ruled that; ttx x x the Commissioner of Customs , in the exercise of his a rJnella te uowers , is not limited to a review of th~~issues ~aised on appeal , but may affirm or reverse the decisions of his sub- ordinate officers on other questions, provided his findings and conclusions are supported by t he evidence . 11 ( Blair vs . Cmmnissioner of Customs, CT- Case No . 686, l:O.r . 25 , 1961) In this case , the findings and conclusions of respondent arc justified by ample evidence . VL1EdEFO::i.E, finding no reversible error in the decision ap pea led from , tlle same is nereby affirmed , with

JZCISION - G. 'r .a. C.d.8E NO � 1451 - 11 - costs against ~ etitioners . bO OEC]RED . -!t:tezon Cit y , l:1ovember 19, 1964- . �,JE co:.rcUR: ~-~ RO ~ M. lTh - LI ) .1.: ssocia te Judge / J