CTA Case No. 4354 (Decision)

~�-----~--- -~......----- ---- --~---------- - - - - - ---------~ REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS Quezon City ROBERTO ROBLES, OPERATOR/OWNER C. T. A. CASE NO. 4354 OF MOTOR TANKER MIT ALICE, AND MODESTO RUBIBIS, CARGO OWNER OF SLUDGE BUNKER OIL, Petitioners, versus - THE COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, Respondent. )( - - - - - This is a petition for review with preliminary injunction of a decision of respondent Commissioner of �customs in seizure case identification no. 3-87 <North Harbor> eaptioned Republic of the Philippines versus Motor Tanker <MT> with CPR No. IGGD-78-0226 and ' he_r cargo of undetermined volume of bunker oil, Roberto Robles, owner/operator, Customs Case No. 89-07 <S.I. No. 3-87, North Harbor). As stated in the caption of the petition, petitioner Roberto Robles is the owner/operator of the Motor Tanker M/T "Alice" and Modesto Rubibis is the cargo owner of the sludge bunker 0 i 1. '207 {

.... .......------ DECISION- eTA CASE NO. 4354 -2- As may be gleaned from the petition for review the M/T "Alice" was the vessel used to convey the "discharged bunker oil" from a foreign vessel, the SS "Benington". It alleged in the petition that the cargo in question was "awarded 11 by the engineer of th'e ss "Benington" to a certain Jose Ribas based on a certification dated November 27, 1987 with a handwritten note at the bottom thereof of a certain of�fi~i"al r. of the Bureau of Customs whose signature is not clear <Annexes & A-1 of the Petition>. The certification with the corresponding handwritten note reads: "From: SS.Benington November 27, 1987 Port of Manila To whom it may concern: This is to certify that, that the Chief of Eng. of the SS BENINGTON has awarded 50 M/T sludge oil waste to Mr. Jose Ribas. This sludge oil HAS BEEN GIVEN TO HIM, as payment for his services personally, using him as driver on ship personal business, and no money i nvo 1ved, for this s 1op waste s 1udge. This certification is issued in connection to request permit of Mr. Jose Ribas to discharge said oil for proper record purposes, freeing vessel from any liability or any barge permit or payment. <Sgd.> CAPT. MARO R. GENTINE Master SS BENINGTON V-06 208 Port of Manila .J

bEtlSION- OT~ CASE NO. 4354 -3- Tb Insp~ctor bn Boardt YbU may aliow dischar~~ subject to continuous underguardin~;~ until r~leased by proper authorities. Printed Na~~ & S i g n a t U I reH ilie!Jible Atiott�u~r 11 dc:u=umetitat-y ~v:idtH'ice 11 t-el:i.ed Upt�tl -t:o e-ftect the d:i.schar!;je .:tnd triit'i!;pbrt.:ttic:H1 bf -t:h~ cat-gb by the M/T 11 Alice 11 Was a cer-bi'fic::atitJti Handwritten by Gristo s. TijaMt Specia1 Assistan-t: 'for Administratibn; b'ffici.:tl statibnery dated November 24� 1987 <Ann�~ G-2t Petition).. as 'follows: hto Whbm this may cbncern* This is to certify that the Chief Eng. of the ss 11 Beningtonil was awarded SO MIT sludge . oil waste to ABRD-Aniceto Bertiz, This sludge has been given to him as payment for his service personally using him as dt"'iVer bh ship personal bUsiness and no money involved fbr this slop waste sludge, 11 The MIT Aiic::e with its c::argo o-f oil was appt-ehended by gtJVerntnent agents .:t-b the foot bf the Dei Pan Bt-idge a1bng the Pasig Rivet- be-fore the cat-go ctJuid be unio.:lded and transfer-t-ed ttJ truck vatis awaiting it6 209

DtCISION- Cl~ CASE NO. 4354 -4- On December 1St 19S7 � a warrant of s e i :Z1Ut"'tt and detention in North Harbor Seizure Identification No .. 3-87 was issued by Gctdofr�do Ursalt Acting Collector of Customst fctr ctf the Taritf and customs Cctde, During the hearing df said seizure cas�� ciaimant for the bunker oil� Modesto ~ubibist prdposed a settlemen~ of ~h~ seizure case in accordanc~ with Sectic:u; 2307 df the Tariff and CUstoms Code to be a good pur~haser in gctbd faith from Messrs. Aniceto Bertiz and J'dse Ribes whicH propctsal was favorably re~ommended by customs bd11ector Ursai <Anne)( Ft Petition.) This dffer tb settle und~r E.O, 3a was denied by the Commissioner df Customs in a resblu-t:iort dated Nctvember 11; 1988 <Annek t>,. Petition>� The case was t"'eturned to customs Collector Ursa1 fot"' final resolution. The Ois-t:rict Collector of Customs <MICP) in his decision dat~td November 17 9 198S ordered the forfeiture of the Motctr Tanker MIT 11 Ali~e 11 and her- cat-go of 184;0G2 liters of bunker� ctil fot- Victla~ion of Sections 2530 (a)t <c>, <d> and <1- i) of the ~ariff and Customs Code. 210

DECISION- CTA CASE NO. 4354 -5- The Commissioner of Customs decision of March 2, 1989 in Customs Case No. 89-07 <S. I. No. 3-87, North Harbor> affirmed the decision of the Collector, ordering the forfeiture of the Motor Tanker M/T "Alice" and her cargo to be dispos~d of in the manner as provided by law. In Answer to the instant Petition for Revi~w, respondent Commissioner narrated the facts and circumstances of the case in the administrative level and anchored his defense in two major points, that is: the Commissioner of Customs did not err in not approving the settlement of the seizure in question; and the Commissioner of Customs did not err in affirming the decision of the forfeiture. On the first ground, it is contended that under Section 2307 of the Tariff and Customs Code, the Commissioner is not bound by the recommendation of the district collector. The recommendation of the district collector for ap.Proval of petitioner's motion to settle merely to expedi;te the termination of the seizure case was unacceptable to the Commissioner. It is further stated that withdrawal of the bunker oil from the foreign vessel was illegal since it did not follow proper customs procedures. Furthermore, the cust o~lffficial who allegedlv

" DECISION- CTA CASE NO. 4354 -6- gave the clearance for its unloading was not legally authorized to do so. There is likewise a prima racie evidence of fraud as the oil declared as sludge oil waste was not so. The owner of M/~ 11 A1ice 11 in a sworn statement stated that said vessel Was carryin~ bunker oil and waste oi1il There was no forMal entry or official declaratibn filed as re~uired by cust~ms law and regulation, On the second the bunker oil ih question and the MIT 11 A1ice 11 are liable to forfeiture by virtue of Section 2530 <a>, <c>t (d); and <1-1> of the Tariff and CustoMs Code Which provides: 11 SEC, 2530. Prol!!,rtY SubJect tu Forfeiture Urider Tariff aR~- Custo~s Law. -- Any vehicle, Vessel or aircraft~ cargo� artiele and other bbjects shall� under the following conditions be sUbject to forfeiture: a. Any� vehicle, ve~~e1 or aircraft; including cargo, which shall be used unlawfully in the importation or exp~rtatibn of articles or in conveying and/or trahsportin~ contraband or �mugdled article~ in commercial quantities into or from any Philippine port or plaee. xxx >hC )( c. Any vessel or aircraft into which shall be transferred cargo Unladen contrary to law prior to the arrival of the importing vessel or aircraft at her port of destination~ 212

DECISION- CTA CASE NO. 4354 -7- d. Any part of the cargo, stores or supplies of a vessel or aircraft arriving from a foreign port which is unladen before the arrival at the vessel's or aircraft's port of destination and without authority from the customs officials; xxx XXX XXX XXX 1. Any article sought to be imported or exported: (1) Without going through a customhouse, whether the act was consummated, frustrated or attempted; XXX XXX XXX No evidence was presented before this Court by both parties. Petitioner opted to submit its case for summary judgement which was granted by the Court; likewise, Respondent submitted his case for decision on the basis of the evidence found in the customs record transmitted to this court. Also, no memorandum was filed by both parties in support of their respective cases. The only issue to be resolved then is whether the decision of the Commissioner of Customs appealed from is legal and valid and in consonance with law. We answer in the affirmative. We quote from the Decision of the respondent Commissioner: 213

... ---- OECISION- . tTA CAS~ NO. 4354 -B- It appears that the afor~said v~ssel MIT fRJicet and her sludge bunk~r oil cargo were apprehended in the aft~rnoon of D~cember 14 1 1987 at the foot of Del Pan Bridge* Tondo 1 Manila. Evidence show that the oi 1 were discharged from th~ v~ss~l 55 "BeningtonH of foreign registry without proper customs authority much iess the corresponding paym~nt of tax~s and dilt i fils as rfilqUi rti>d by th~ Tariff and Customs Law. That th~ oi 1 was trans ferrti>d to the MIT '1Rl ice '1 which conv~y~d the same from the SS "Beni ngton" to the foot of the Del Pan Bridge; where the oil evidently will be pick~d up by truck vans. That the oi 1 could hav~ been transferred to the truck vans and taken to Unknown destination without payment of dutiPS and .taxes ther~on due had it not for the tim~ly arrival of the apprehending authorities. In short, this is a clear case of an importation without going through a customhouse in violation of Section 2530 par. L-1 of th~ Tariff and Customs Cod~. 11s td the vessel "MIT Rlice" it is . likti>wise clear that she violated Section 2530 par. a of the Tariff and Customs Code, hence liable to forfeiture. From the foregoing facts, it is clear that the bunker oil in qu~stion is liable td forfeiture, and the MIT "Rlice" deserves the sam~ penalty for carrying on board the smuggl~d bunker oil. CAnndH A, petition] Th.,. allegation uf petitiuner that the customs favurably recDmmended tb-'.be noted that under Section 2~07 of the Tari-f-f and CustDms Code; such settlement is subject tu the apprDVal Df the Commissioner b-f Custbms. Parenthetically� in ~ts p.,.tition for review� pet::ltibner alleged that the tJil was not pilfered. Dt-- stolen. In other words it invuked "guud 214 /

DECiSION- eTA CASE NO. 4354 -9- tai-\:h" aa a defense. Thi.s however� did not httlp any, "Forfeiture is presc=ribed not only -for -fraudulttnt I ac=ts that result in th� lose ot Y'ttVenue OY' adminis-brative difticulty .in th� 8hforc=etnent at cu's-t: oms 1aws .. 11 <U.s, vs. 'the th ~ nph i 1e , o. c. T~><. 11 F. 6964 Sah Carlos Trading v. Cnmm. of Customs, CTA Case No~ 31t F~b~ 2t 1955), The petition for review is theref'oyo d�void o~ sUstain dec=ision of' Commissioner of customs forfeiting the motor tanker MIT 11 Al ice" and her c=argo to be dispotuid of in the mann~r as provided for by law. Furthermo~e� we are reminded bf the well- sC!ttled rule that findings administrative/quasi-judic=ial agenc=ies which hav� ae~uired eHpertise/spec=ial knowledge their jurisdiction is confined to specific ma~ters are accorded not only respect but also ~ finali-t:y <Late~me Motnomull vs, DelaPaz, 187 SCRA 143t Villahu~va vs, Cnurt of Appeals 205 SCRA 537; S~sbreno vs Ala, 208 SCRA 359; Villanueva� Sr, vs Leogardo, Jr.t 215 SC~A 835). 215

DECISION- eTA CASE NO. 4354 -10- WHEREFORE, the petition For review is hereby dismissed with costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. -:iof?~~~ I Associate Jud(j" WE CONCUR: ~(l.~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding ~- GRUBA Associate Judge C..�:RTJ:FJ:CATJ:ON I hereby certify that this decision was reached after due consultation among the members of the Court of Tax Appeals in accordance with Section 13, Article VI I I, of the Constitution. Q... .. c:;-~c ~ ERNESTO D. ACOSTA Presiding Judge Court of Tax Appeals 216