CTA Case No. 2866 (Decision)

�� .. , �'� ' f(" OF 1 HI! J>I!JLIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QU&ZON CITY T L E T~� I � repre nted C.T � � C SE ~~. 2866 by it Propri tor MAX ODRIGO. Petitioner. - v rsu H COMM S IO ~R 0 CU TG .~ . spondent. X- ~ - - - - - - ~~ - - - - X D CI 0 From th decision of r spond nt Com i sioner of Cu toms d t d J nuary 27 . 1976� ffirming tr. deci ion of the Co1l ctcr of Cu tom of the ort of c bu d ted June 30� 1975 (in Ceb o::~ izure d ntific tion o . l-75) . d cr eing the for� �ture of 2. ooo c e of .. ��candi ...,. in th m rch ndis � hich wer cl r export entry nd coveri g >C"port doc ents . for vio- 1 tion of r side ti 1 D cr o . 579. in rel tion to ction 2530(�) of the T riff nd Custom Co � . nd � the xport r . titian r nt 1 Ent rpri s . repr ent d by its roprietor x odrigo. h f11 ti p l. reasons for the forfeiture of the subj ct merch ndi for viol tion of ection 2630(�) of th T riff nd Custom Cod nd resid nti 1 D cr 'o . 579 r : s found by the Collector in hi d ci ion. th pr serv tiv of th c ndies 11 in the form of r fined 303

DECI I � 2866 CT CASE - 2- sug r is quite big in proportion" (pp . 139-141 , CU - toms record); nd, found by respondent Commis ioner of Custo s in hi decision, ' It 1 very pp r nt th t the c no es w r us d subterfuge for su r. The subj ct rticle er so d vi ed to m k n e port ticn of sug r nd pa th m of s 1 w." c die in ord r to circumvent (s xh . "A" � pp. 162-16 , Cu tom record ) . Other- wi stat d , the argum nts in upport of the forff~itur of the subj ct shipment, a e pres d in respond nt � m or ndum filed in t i ourt ft r tri 1 , re: "Under ~ cticn 2530(f) of th T riff nd Custo Co e , it 1 c1 r1y st t d th t ny rticl ch 1 ort tion or export tion of hich i ff ct d or t t m_. ted contr. ry to 1 w is ubject to forfeitur � Th t per Ch i try port o . C-75-7 d ted bru ry 7 , 1975, th brownish y llo 1 mp a well the hite cry t lline �lid cr positive for sug r n. per r por No . 11-75 c.�p d ted bru ry 7. 1975, th ucro e content of the crystalline lumrs cf irr gul r i s with powdery coating y llow or nge in col r i 80.70 m d by the tion l Bure u of nve tig tion Central is yas gional Offic nd h Philippine Sugar Institut � resp c- tiv ly. lt is indubitable. th refor � th t th candi s wer u ed as subterfuge for th sugar. The subject rticles were so d vis to make an exportation of sugar and th of s c ndi s in or er to circum- the 1 w. Under Section 2 of Pr siden- Decr o. 579 it is ex licitly st t th t to c rry out the obj ctiv s of the D ere , th hilippin xch ng Company, Inc. m y b ut oriz d by th Pr sident of th Philippines to purch se sugar allocated for export to the u.s. nd orld market in u ntity nd t price to be fixed in ccor- d nee ith the rule no regul tion that hall be stabli h d by the Sug r Cuo Administration , the Philippine Nation 1 ank, 304

DECISION - CTA CAS O. 2866 - 3- and D p rtment of Trade nd approved by the � resid nt of the Philippine � Und r the pre- mises. there is no doubt th t there i an exportation of .ugar contr ry to law in g ross violation of Section 2530(f) of th Tariff nd Custom Code. �� In upport of its app 1 s iling th legality nd v lidity of res uond ent's decision , ~ever 1 r sons were adv need by petitioner in its ori- gin 1 petition for review (pp. l-3 . CT ' record ) nd. ubs quently. in its amended etition for review (pp . 41-45. CT records) . but in its memorandum fil d ft r trial. th princip l g m nts r i ed could prop rly be summ ri d into four . to wit: 1 . That respondent Commissioner of Custom � in m int ining the view th t wh t w s loaded on bo rd the M/S u s ern inicon" was sug r and not canaies. disreg rd d the certificate of the ure u of St ndards ( :xh. " .. . . 85 , Custo ms record); certific t of the Food and Drug dmini tr tic n (Exh. uG" � p . 94 . Customs r :cord ); nd the ex in tion r port of exp rt :xaminer odulfc Sagun (Exh . "H" � p . 1. Custo records); 2 . Th t granting without admitting th t th ubj ct exportation is sug r nd not candi s . re- identi 1 Deere -o ~ 579 does not impos p n ltyr 3. That the seizure proceedings instituted by th ureau of Customs on ebru ry 26� 1975. well a the decisions renaer d by the Collector of 305

D�CI 'ION- CT CA E o . 2866 - 4- Customs nd th Commission r of Cu terns declaring th for� iture of the subject m rch ndise for vio- lation of Presid ntial Decree No . 579 , in r l tion to s ction 2530(�) of th T riff nd Cu toms Code, ar null nd void, b c us Pre id nti 1 ecre No . 579 w r peal d by Presid ntial D cr o . 659 upon its eff ctivity on ebruary 21, 1975, nd th t under s ction 5 of the l tter 1 w, the jurisdiction to con- duct izure proceedings in c ses involving ill g l trading nd illeg 1 export tion of sug r is v sted in the prop r courts nd not in th ure u of Custom ; 4 . That in nether c se involving n export- tion of 200 cartons of sugar app reh nded by the hilippine Co t Gu rd in Ceb on June 3, 1975, the Coll ctor of Custcm of Cebu did not condu::t eizur proc edings g inst the articles b cau und r Pr - sid nti 1 D cr e o . 659 his effie is lr ady div ted of juri diction ov r d s involving illegal tr ding nd i leg 1 xport ticn of sug r . h Court dis gre s with petitioner and mu t p rforc sustain th stand of re pendent Commissioner of CU toms . Th facts of this case, a st ted in the deci- sion appeal d fro m, are no t the subject of ubst n _ ti 1 controv rsy, the same having been esta lished during th custom izure proceedings. Thus: 306

D�CI ION - CT CASE Nr . 2866 - 5- (1) �h t th 2. ooo c ses d cl red s c ndi s duly covered by xport ntry o . 00201 dat d Janu ry 31, 1975, nd ll perti- n nt documents consign d to the st rn orld- wid Co � � Ltd �� Hongkong to be shiP. d by the ....antal nterpri � s loaded rd the 11 ASTE N� i i ICC H� on i' bruary s. 1975; (2) That since the ore duly nd prop rly d cument d, Load w is ued by this Office in question was included in th nif st of the v ssel; (3) � hat after lo di g of the sa e cl ranc dated Febru ry 6 . 1975. was i ssued to the fcres id v sel; (4) Th t -1hen the representatives of th hipping company appli d for military cle ranc t the Office of th Ph ilippi e Co stgu rd on br ary 6 � 1975. the 1 tter refused to i~aue uch cle r nee b t ins~ead pvreh nd d the 2. ooo cart ns d cl red as c andi ~: (5) cargo was ord red n c . Tuvill on d i ch rged by Comma nd Febru ry 6. 1975. nd .,.tared t he Cebu Cu - tam~ nded : rehou ; (6) 'lh t en ebru ry 25 . 975 ,. Commander ~uv111 requested for the issuance of Warrant of 'eizur and Det ntion against the afores id c rgoes nd vessel for violation of ction 2530(a) and (f) of the amended T riff nd Cus- toms Code: (7) h t on ebruary 26. 1975. the arr nt of izur nd D tention w s is ued by this Offic : (8) That team com osed of the r pre en- t ti es of the Philip~ine Coastguard , Bureau of Customs. hilippine ational Bank, Sug ~ Quota Administration and the Philippine Cons � bulary wa created to conduct n inventory of th cargoes involyed and determine the perc n- tage of refined sugar allegedly used preser- v tiv of the candies; (9) Th t said inventory ~as started en bru ry 24. 1975. and c ompleted on M rch 21. 307

DECISIO CTA C S o. 2866 - 6- 1975, report of which as submitted to this Offic on pril 8 , 19757 (10) That p r r port of the Inventory Team. th gross weight of th cargoes involv d wa 98 , 427 kilo , 55 , 619 kilos or 56 . 51%� 42 , 609 kilos or 43 . 29% and 199 kilo or . 29% of which cov rs the total weight of candie , r fined ugar and containers , r e pectiv ly7 (11) That the refined sugar segr g ted fro the said shipment was pack in 816 bags ; (12) That per Chemistry R port No . C- 75-7 dat d February 7 ~ 1975, the brownish yellow lump as well as the white crystalline solid po itiv for sug r nd per report No . 11- 75 RAW SP d t d Febru ry 7, 1975, the ucros cant nt of th cry t- lin lump of irr gul r sizes with po dery coating yellow orang in color 1 ao . 70% made by th National Bure u of Inve ti- gation Centr l Visayas R gional Offic nd the Philippin Sugar In titut , r spectively. rom the fact and figures born out by th report of the customs inventory te (see Exhs . "D" , "D-1' - "D-18,. , pp. 5-24, Custom records) and ad- mitted by p titioner (p. 40, Customs r cords), th segreg ted refin d sugar which w mix d with th c ndi s in the same cent iner amounted to 42, 609 kilos or 816 b gs , or 43 . 29% of the whole shipment ; hil th candies or candy drops repres nt 55, 619 kilos or 56 . 51% . And as per che istry report ( o . 11-75 RAW SP) d t d February 7, 1975 of .the Philippine sug r Institute (seep. 102, Custom records) , which wa likewise admitt d by petitioner (p . 40, Customs records) , th crystalline lump of irr gular sizes with powdery coating yellow orange in color (i . e .,

OECl..,IO CTA CAS N � 2866 - 7- r f rring to the ample of candi ) h ve ucro content of 80 .70% . vidently. i f the whol p rc n- g of ug r (th t is both the gr g t d r fin d ug r n the sucros cont nts of t e c ndi s) houl b con ider d . it ~ould cl arly pp r th t . in te d of b ing pur ly candies s d cl r d by p titioner. the subj ct m rchandise con titute pr ctic lly of sug r. everth le s . ev n if only the segregat d r fin d ug r sh u d b taken into account. th p r- c nt ge or pro rtion th r of is quite big nd ub - tantial th .t. in the bs nee of comp t nt eviaenc that thi typ or kin~ of c� die beir.g export d n cess rily re uires thi 1 rg qu ntity of refin d ug r . th conclu ion is ir.e ita.bl th t th ubj c xportation con ists not m r ly of ndi but p rtly of r fined ug r . Contrary to p titioner' s reli nc of proof on . .the c rtific t of th ure u of t ndards (Exh . � p . as. cu to records); th certification of t ood nd Drug dministr tian (Exh . "D" � p . 94 . CU torn r~ oord ); nd the r port of export x in r >. odolfo Sagun ( xh. "H' � p . 1 . Cu toms record th Court is convinced th t what is mor controlling nd credible to th ctual n tur nd condition of th subject m rchandis r th undi put d finding of the custom inv ntory tea and th ch mi try reoorts 309

DECISI CTA CASE NO. 2866 - 8- of recogniz d agencies which were made aft r the dis- covery nd ppr hension of the subject rticles . These reports command much respect nd weight, since they proc d from the agencies of th Government c lled upon to s fegu rd the sugar industry, and to rationaliz and tabilize the export of sugar . On the other hand, th certifications cit d by petitioner m rely make s lf- s rving generaliz d st tement as to the export- bility and conform bility to buyer' s specifications of the candies or candy drop before their actual lo ding for export and� app rently, such routin documents , which could conveniently b obtained, do not tak into account the actual condition of the shipment upon pprehension, and its composition, which ctu lly involve an enormous uantity of refined sugar mixed with the candi s in th same container � And rith respect to the report of examiner Rodolfo Sagun to the Coll ctor of Custom ( xh. " 11 p. 1, 1 Customs r e cords), it smacks of insufficiency and indefiniteness because it ~imp ly st tes th t th c rtons contain pl stic packages or bags of unwr pped candy drops with liberal sprinkling of sug r , with- out specifying the pr portion thereof . It dmits th t: "This spot- check report is ubmitted for your inform tion and guid nee and for the exercise of discretion whether or not tc en rge the percentag 310

DECI SION .,. CTA CASE NO. 2866 of examination" ( mphas i s suppl ied .). V ri ly, sa i d r port is not final nd b inding on the Collector of CUstoms and same has been negated and contradic ted by the r port of t he c ustoms inventory team (Exhs 8 "D", "D-1" to "D-18 ��,~ I d .) whi c h indic tes that th re was not merely a liber al s prinkl i ng of sugar � on th c andi s but a tr mendous and 1 rge qu ntity of refined sugar mixed with them. Ind ed, under Pre identi 1 Decree No . 57 9 1 wh ich took ffect upon its promulgation on November 12, 1974~ the export of s gar is subject to c ertain r quirements and regulations. And under s ction 2530 (f) of the T riff nd Customs Code, any arti c l the i m- portation or xportation o f whic h i s effe cted or tt mpted contrary to law, as well as the artic les u sed o r were entered to be used as ins t rument s in tQe import tion or expo rtation of the former , are ub j ect to forfeiture. We quote hereund r the pertinent provisions of said laws for clarity and c onvenienc � PRE IDENTIAL DECR E NO . 57 9 RATIONALIZ I NG AND STABILIZI G THE EXPORT OF SUGAR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES XXX XXX XXX SECTION 1 . The s u gar Quota Administration shall from time to time and commeneing f r om th crop y a r 197 3-1974, re- llocate such po rtion of the total sugar pro duc tion per crop year f or xport to the United States and world markets 31 1. .

DECI I - CTA CASE NO . 2866 - 10 - a may b n cessary to safegu rd the sug r in- du try nd the n tional economy against con- tingencie brought about by speculative interest in sugar. In addition to its powers under existing laws . the Sug r uuota Administr tion �sh ll h ve th power to issue authorization for th xport of ugar in ccordanc with the re- lloc tiona provided for in th preceding paragraph. SECTION 2 . To c rry out th objective ~of the Deere � the Philippine Exchang Cowpany. � Inc . ..ay be �uthorized by th President of th Philippines to purch se sug r lloc t d for export to th u.s. nd rld m rkets in quan- tity and t a price to be fi ed in ccord nee with the rules and regul tion th t shall be est blished by the Sugar Oucta Administration, th Philippine National Bank, nd the Department of Trade and approved by the Presid nt of the Philippin s . SECTIO 3. Th hilippine ation 1 Bank shall financ the e purch ses o� sugar from the following ourceo of fund ; XXX XX XXX SECTION 4 . To effectively implement th provisions of .the preceding section , loans or advances by the hilippine Nation 1 ank to the Philippine Exch nge Company. Inc . for the purpo e directed in this Deere shall be exempt from th loan limits imposed in the ch rter of th said ank . ( XXX XXX XXX ECTIO 5 . The Department of Trade and the Sugar ~uota Administr tion shall extend full cooperation and assistance to the govern- ment agencies and entities herein mentioned in order to a t tain the objecti'ires of this Decree and shall furnish them with such d ata and in- formation as may be necessary for the effective i nternational m rketing of sugar. SECTION 6 . The sug r so purchased by the Philippine Exchange Company. Inc . shall not b dispo ed of without the prior pproval of th 312

DECISION - CTA CA N � 2866 - 11 - Presid nt of the hili ppi ne � Th Philippine Exch nge Comp ny. Inc . h 11 handle the xport nd shipm nt of such sug r to the u. . nd world rn rket � XXX XXX XXX orfei- Any v hicl � nd other conditions itur : XXX \. XXX XXX f . Any articl th import tion or export- tion cf which 1 ffected or tt m t d con- trary to 1 w. or ny rticl of prohibited i port tion or xport tion. nd ll oth r rti- cl hich. in t opinion of th Collector. h v be n used. r cr ere entered to b u e s in truments in the import tion or export tion of the former . r � th re i n qu stion that th xpor tion of sug r made or tt ted without compli nc with th r uire nts of Presid nti 1 0 cree o . 579. a it doe not e en appear that the trans ction� 1 m de known to th .;;:,ugar ~ uota Admini tration nd th p ili pin xchang Com any. Inc. d . ap rently. th d�es w re u d to effectuate the s id illega l nd n uthorized xport tion. A uch. the subject hi m nt con isting of 2. 000 cases of c ndi d ug r is subject to forf iture under s ction 2530(�) of th Tariff nd Custo s Cod � Th f ct th t re identi 1 Deer o . 579 do 313

D CISlO CTA C SE o. 2866 - 12 - not provi e for pen lty is of no cons qu nee. b c us th viol tion o its provisions ould. non thel s � k th xport tion of sugar illeg 1 or contr ry to law. puni h bl under ~ ction 2530(f) of the Tariff nd Cu tom Cod � will b not � th provi ion of S ction 2530(�) of the T riff nd C tern Code r g n ral in ch racter n th am c n rn de to pply to 1 kin s of import tion or export tion eff ct or tt mpted contrary to la � h articl of pro- hibit import ticn or e ort tion nt~oned in Section 2530(f) which r ubject to forf itur r not limit d to rticl of prohibit d im ort tion or xport tion num r t in t T riff and C tom Code . h st tutory provision uth �rizing forf iture 1 o ply to rtic1 s th t m y be the ubject of ctivities un ertak n in viol tion of other law � (V n ncio c rreion o g Tek vs. Commissioner of Custom � CT C o . 135� D cemb r 21. 1956, ffd . in 105 Phil . 1071; Gigar vs. Commissioner f Cu toms. -21370� u u t 2 � 1966. 17 sc 1001; Vi rn z v � Commi ion r of Cu tom � L-24348. J 1y 30. 1968. 24 ~c 994; e ip up ngco v � Commissioner cf Custom � L-22259� J nu ry 19. 1966. 16 CRA 1: Chan Xi n vs. Commission r of Customs . L-20803 . Janu ry 31 . 1966� 16 SC 133; c - pulong vs . Aseron. -22989� May 14 . 1966. 17 ~C 11: L z tin v � Commission r cf Custom � L-19753. July 314

DECI 'ION - CT CAS o . 2866 - 13 - 30. 1969 , 28 SC~\ 1016; F ; S re vs . Commi sioner of CU tom � L-22263 , August 29 . 1969. 29 CRA 112: Geotin vs . Court of T x Appe 1 � L-33500, August 30. 1971. 40 SCRA 362; Commission r of Custom v � Dichoso. L-33 71. J nuary 31 . 1972 , 43 SCAA 192.) Coming to the r9ument of titioner that th customs izure proc eding a well the d eci ion o th Collector nd the Co 1 sioner of CUstom ar null nd void bee use Presidenti 1 D cree No . 579 had alre dy been repealed by Pre identi 1 Decree o . 659 t th time the in t nt seizur proceeding w s in tituted on ebruary 26, 1979; nd that und r Section 5 of th latter d cree the jurisdiction to conduct s izur proc edings inmses involving illeg 1 .xport- at1on of sug r is lready vest d in the proper courts nd not in th Burea of Customs. the same 1 l ik - wi e devoid of merit. In th first pl ce. while Presid nti 1 0 cree o . 659 (decree penalizing ill gal tr ding and illeg 1 xport tion of Philippine ug r) provides th t 11 l � e:x c utive orders. instruction , rule nd re- gul tions incon istent with its provisions re re- 1 or m nded accordingly (se Section 6, P . D. No . 659) � there is ctually n o repugn ncy o r incon- i tency betwe n the provisions of s id deer e nd th provision of Presid ntia Decree o. 579 to 315 '

DECISION - CTA CA E C. 2866 - 14 - indic te uch rep 1 . Pr si ntial D ere No . 659 imply mplifies nd complem nt the provi ions of Pre i nti 1 D cr o . 579. which alre dy pre crib c rt in r quirem nts nd r gu1 tions for the export of ug r , by xpanding th cov rag o th d cree to ill gal tr ding and ill g 1 exportation of ugar in ny form ( e ection 1, P.D. o . 659) : d fining the ct punish ble thereby <~c . 2. Id . ): imposin cri- min l s nctions or p n lti g in t th offend (S c. 3, Id . ): nd providing for the confiscation of ugar ill g 1ly tr d or export ll s the v ss 1 or aircr ft u d in vi l tion th reof . In f et, in d fining th punishable c ts, Pre identi l D cr c . 659 inc1ud s th s lc, tr n fer or sign- ment of sug r to ny rson or ntity other th n th Ph1l�p ine xchange Inc . nd the Philippine N tion 1 ank, as illeg l tr ding of su r {S c . 2/i/. Id . ): nd in th xport tion of sug r , it i r quir d th t th r must b prior uthority to lo d from th u of Customs nd th corre ending export p rmit th r for from the Sug r uot dmini tr tion and th C ntr l B nk ( c. 2Lb7. Id . ) , whic h export p rmit " r lready contemplat d under Pre identi 1 D ere o . 579 . And in Section 5 of Pr id nti 1 D cr � 659, / follow hich provid s 316

DECISl - CTA CASE O. 2866 - 16 - hich h juri diction over th criminal c se. hich y ord r the confisc t1on of the instr nt us in the viol tion ther of, in d ition to th crimin l n lty; or the fin l judgment cf the court on ppe l from th d cision cf th ur u of Custo in th seizur proce dings . At this junct r , it m y b not d th t ca s involving s 12 r und r Cu tom w � w ich include not only the pr.ovision of th T riff nd cu tc Cod n regul tion pursu nt ther to but ll oth r 1 w nd r gulation hich re bject to enforcem nt by th ure u of Custom or oth n i e within its juri diction ( c 9 3514. ariff nd Cu toms Code) . re xclu iv ly under the jurisdiction of th court of T p e 1 � ( cting Coll ctor of Custom v � C lu g, L-23925, y 24 , 1967, 23 sc 204 . ) In oth r ord , sine ~ ction 5 of Pr identi 1 Deer o . 659 doe not expressly r vide th t th re u of Cu tom h s no juri diction ov r th eizur n for� itur of sugar ill gally xported, w 11 th articl s , v sse! or aircr ft u ed in effecting th il g l export tion; nd sine th r i no pp rent conflict or inconsist ncy b twe n the provision of id s ction and the provisi on of th Tariff nd Custom Cod � particularly section 2530 ( ) nd (f) ther of. th provi~ions of th t o t tut s hould b r concil d nd h rmoni d , pplying the ttled rul 318

tlECISIO CT CAr . NO . 2866 - lS - � s c. s. o ircr ft. - violation of thi D cr d urrend,r d to th r xchang � Inc. offic for r lloc tion. without prejudic to the rights of the p ti who h 11 be entitled to the r t rn of ug r of the am kind nd ~ ntity. ould t ey b found lat r on by the pro r uth rities to be innocent of the off n e h rein de�ined. Th v ss 1 or ircr ft u ed in viol tion of th � provision hereof sh 11. fter fin 1 judgment by th court. b confiscated in f vor of the Gov rnm nt, there ft�r to dispo ed cf in ccord nc with the previsions of th T riff and Custom Cod � nothing is s id either xpr sly or impliedly th t t ure u of Custom ha~ be n d priv d of it juri - diction to conduct eizure proc edings gainst the rticl (sug r) e v l or ircr ft involved in th ill g 1 export ti n. h confisc tion t t d ther - in could ither th conf c tion in connection with. or re ult of, the crimin l action ag in t the off d r . which i cognizable by the regul r courts . or the ecnfiscation in connection with ,_ or s - - n� d forfgiture of th article, vessel or aircr ft involved in th tion, which i cc ni bl by th u.re u of CUstoms und r th '!' riff nd c tom Code. d,_ p renth tic lly,_ th - ph . th r in: " fter final judg ent by the court" � which q 11�1 the confisc tion of the vessel or ircraft u d in th vio tion of th d ere � hould be con - tru d to me n ither the final judgment of t he court 317

DECISION - CTA CAo 0. 2666 - 17 - of t tutory construction that repe 1 by implication i not f vor d unl it i m nifest th t the 1 .- gi 1 tur o int nded (Commie on r of Custv s vs . sso Standard a t rn, Inc. , L- 28329, August 7, 1975, 66 c 113) , and th t tatut r 1 ting to the am ubj ct m tter .r to con tru d with ref renee to ch other (Madrig 1 vs. R fferty, 3 Phil. 14: 51 � Jur. 363). S condly, a urning ut without dmitting, th t Pre id nti l 0 r No . 579 had b en r p aled by Pr id ntial Deer o . 659 upon its f ctivity on bru ry 21 , 1975, th r p al c n only h ve ~ro ctive op ration bee us , the 1 tt r doe not provid for r troaetivity. Sta ut s h ve no r trcactiv eff ct unl s oth rwis provided therein. (Espiritu v � Cipri no , -32743 , F bru ry 15, 1974, 55 SCRA 533.) Con u ntly, on bruary 5, 1975 wh n th lo ding of th ubj et hipm nt of uq r nd c n i for port teo pl ce, nd n bru ry 6, 1975 when th aaid export tion a pprehend d by the uthoritie , PresidJntial D cr o. 579, which provid � mong oth rs, th t th export of ug r h 11 b eov red by r -alloe tion nd uthorizat.ion by th Sug r Quota dministr tion, w still in fore nd in ff ct. n s w id, th viol tion of or non-eompli nee with, th r quir m nt of Pre identi 1 D ere o. 579 would 319

DECISlO eTA CA~ NO. 2866 - 18 - m ke the xportation of sug r contrary to l w nd the id rtic ubj ct to eizure and forfeiture under s ction 2530(�) of th T riff nd cu toms Code . / ent p titioner ' s rgument. or obs rv tion. that in nether cas involving the expor tion of 200 c rtons of ugar on Jun 3. 975 the Coll ctor of Customs of the Port of Cebu did net issue a w rrant of izur and d t ntion or conduct seizure proceedings g inst the said rticle c use of hi vi that under the procedure t blished by the irnpl menting rul s nd re ulation of Pre identi 1 D ere No . 659 , c s inv lving violati ns of id D ere lready vested in the prop r courts and not in th Bur u of Cu tom ' ( >. Exh . � " , ~ � 66-67, CL record the Court feels t t this matter has no m teri lity or rel v ncy to the instant ppe 1. ithout in th lea t att mpting to expr ss an opinion on the ctu tion or motivation of the Collector of CUstoms of C bu in r fu ing to i u the w rr nt of seizur and d t ntion or to conduct izure proc eding � it b rs mphasis th t the in tant case inv lv decision of the same Collector of Customs of the ort of Cebu which s uph ld by respondent Commis- sion r of Cu toms nd duly ppealed to this Court und r the provisions of R public Act No. 1125 and �_) ') 0 '"" -

DECI ION - CT CJ S NO. 2866 - 19 - S ction 2402 of th T riff and Cu tom Cod � It would th r for b i cone ption of it judicial duty of impartial l y interpr ting and 'applying the 1 w if this Court would take into ccount an 11 ed inconsist nt t nd of a collector of custom in deciding customs c e prop rly p e l d befo r it. In the light of the bov � the d ci ion of r spondent Commi sioner of CUstom ted J nu ry 27 . 1976� ord ring tl~ forfeitur of the subj_ct hip- m nt of 2. 000 case decla ed as c ndi s and m rked c. �.c. Hongko g 1-2000 for violation of Pr sidenti 1 D cr e o . 579. in r l tion to s ction 2530(�) of the Tariff nq Custo Co � mu t b ustained . E - Fe E. th judgm nt nder r e vi w is h reby ffirmed t titioner�s cost � SO 0 DE � uu zen City. etro ani1 � October 31. 1979 . ~E LLEa residing Judg I CO CU : CO~ROAQUIN A soci t Judge 32 1