CTA Case No. 2355 (Decision)

- .. ~ '. ' � .. lt.EPUnf.I C O V T RF. :nnLTPPI NEa i COURT OF T AX .-. PPEAUJ I QU.E:t,o . cnr ,.I. .. - - -�."~. ,� l. / BENJAMI N A. MALABR IGOr ., Pe titione :.: ,. - .versl!s - C .T . A. CASE NO. 23 55 I CT I NG COMMI SSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Responde t . X- - - ~- .X DE C I S I 0 Peti t i o er seeks to vac ate respondent Commis s ioner of Customs 8 .de c i sion i n Cu s t oms Case No . 1000 dated Novembe r 1 7 , 197 0 , rel a tive to the f orf eiture of two ( 2) .a rmalite rif les , ,� rounds of ammunition and c onta i ni ng baffle s allegedly found v iolati ve of the Customs l aw. The pertinent pr ov is i on s of t he Ta r i ff a nd Customs Code a re as f ollows: "Sec tion 1 02. Prohibited Imp_~ a t i on�.- . The i mportat i on into t he Philippines of t he f ollowing ar tic les i s prohibi t ed : a . Dynamite , gunpowder , ammunition s and other explosives , f irearms , a nd we:~.E..<?n s of wa r, an~ar ts j:h �.~~e o f, ex cept when a u t hor i zed by law . XXX XXX xxx. 11 "Sec t ion 2530 . Proper ty �ubject o For f ei t ure Under Ta riff a nd C us~ ~ � . Any veh icle , ve ssel or aircra ft, cargo , a r t ie e and othe obj ects shall, under t he f ollowing condit i ons be sub- . j ec t to f or f eiture : 16

-J ,, J. DEC ISION - CTA CAS E NO . 2 355 - 2- XXX ' XXX XXX ( t ) . Any ar tic l e the importa t i on or exportation of which i s effected or attempted contr ary to l aw 1 o r ~!.l.!..t~.cl~___<?l_Ef.�- . , � hib i ted i mpq_rt ?l tio.:�~ or e x po rt - a t ion , and all other artic les which , i n the opin i on of t he Co l l ector, have been used 6 a re o r we r e e ntered to be used as i n st r u m~n t s i n t.h_g__imE,_or ta fiOn or. expor tat iot of t he forme r ; X}{ X XXX XXX (m) . Any a r t ic l e sought to be im- .� por ted or expor ted : XXX XXX XXX ( 3 On the st r enth of a f alse 'declarat ion or affidav i t e xc8uted by the owner, i mporte r , expo r te r or con- signee c oncerni n<;t t he im- portation of such article; XXX XXX (5) Through any other practice 'or dev i c e contrary t o l aw by means o f wh ich su ch ~ a rtic l es was ente r ed t hroug h a cus t omhou s e to t he pre- judice o f the gover nme n t ." (U nde r scoring su pplied .) . The records disclose that , 1) some t ime on . August 26 , 196 9 three (3 ) ~ie ce s of unac companied baggage f r om Sa i gon , Vietnam on board t he Pan American Airways pla ne arrived at t he Manila In te r- ationa l Airport , so declar~d in t he cover i ng Air- way b i ll , 'SAID TO CONTAI N: US ED PE RSONA L EFFEC'rS 11 162 !

.' I: 1' � DECIS I ON - CTA CASE NO. 235 5 .:.. 3 - s lipped by and consign~d to Benjam i n A. Mala brigo th e petition�e r, whose ar r iva l was on August 27 , 196 9; 2) .on Septembe r 2 1 1 96 9 a representati ve �- � of t he brokerage of the 67th Ai r boc ne Fo r wa r ders � c laimed the cargo from the Pacific As s oc ia t es Corpor a t i on, a c us toms bonded ware hous e, f or rc - lease fr om Cu stoms c ustody; 3) ? POD Customs inspection and examina t i on , each of t he two (2) " Sansu i" baffles yielded a d i smantle d Armali t e .� r i f l e , Co lt AR - l5 1 with corr espondi g maga zines cont a i ning 15 rou nds of ammun ition and t he one s ui tcase, i t ems of c lothi ng, new an d� used; 4) t he Co llec to r of Customs , Ma nila I n ternatio na l Ai rpor t , ins titut ed seizu re proceedings against the mil itary hardware and contai ne rs the reof, which impor t ation . was effec ted on the strength of a "false declar ation" a d thr ough f r audu l ent de vi ce pursu ant to Sectidn 2530 m -.3 and - 5. of t he Tarif f and Cus't oms Code, ~~ra : and a cc ord i ngly dec r e (;; d t he fo rfe itu r e in f avor of t he governij\c nt on Apri l 2 ' � 1970 (Seizure Ide nt ifi ca t ion No. 959) ;_ 5 ) .on a ppe a l by he claiman t petitione r, the fo rfeiture or de r was a ffirmed by t he responde n t Commiss ione r of Customs e inforced by Section 102(a) in relation to Section . 25 30.(f ) , both of the Ta r iff and Customs Code, �.~!.L?.f.E., 16 3

.. ~~i ~� �--;;--r;::r ~ t � '. DEC IS ION - CTA CASE NOe 235 5 I .:. 4 as a dd itional g r ound the re f o r (Cu s t oms Ca se No . 1 000 � w da t e d Novembe r 17, 1970) i. and 6) .a f urther re cons i de r - / ation ~r oved t o no avai l as t he same wa s denied . in ; � a resolut i on dated Novembe r 3 1 19 71 of t he r es ponden t. Hence , this pet iti on. Petit i one r assa ils th e lega lity o f the dec r ee� of forfeiture and avers the conf iscated ar tic les were not "fa lsely declared" in c on templation of Sec tion 2530 (m .~ ' s upra, as they a re indeed " used ~ persona l e f fects"; and fur t he r takes issue t ha t the ri fles c a n no longer be conside r ed " prohibited i m- por t a tion unde r Section 102 (a ) ~ supr ! , afte r hav i ng applied f or a license there for as affirmed by the Col l ector of Customs tha t the same "ceased to become an article of pr ohibi ted importat ion as def i ned in Sect i on 1 02 (a) of Repub l ic Ac t No . 1 937 " a nd which responden t Comm i ssioner of Custom ;.:; ought i nf u se .~ cognizance. The p re c ise is s ue is nothing more t ha t whe ther or riot the forfei ture of t he su b je ~t car go i s in a ccord with l aw. We do not i n t he case at bar find difficulty i n disentangling the appare n t qui bble posed by the pe titi oner . The na t ure and character of t he arti;l cs ha r dly seem to be a gri ppin g quest ion, The pelluci- dity of the language of Section 102 (a ) .insofar as

- I- l � DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 2355 ~5- i t relates to "firearm~ a nd we apo ns of war and p a rts t he reo�f", de emed proh ibite d � xcep t when authorized by law" requires no f urther exegesis � � The controverted mili t ar y rifles of the Vie tnam � War vintage sough- to be e n tere d~ the ne cessary license or author i ty a r e obvious_y of the c ategory� The requisi te " aut ori ze d by law" canno t be nai vely v i ewed for a mere ~u e asy a nt ic ipa t ion bu t r ather o f defir~e n es s and fina]ty upon which petitione~'s right t o t he importati on mu st be e xers i sed or lost. The pe ndency of the applica tion for lega l posse ss ion t her eof fu rnishes no satisfacti on of ult'mate solution. As a factly mat t e r , "up to this ti me, no license has yet been re c e'ved from t he Ph il ippine Con sta bulary a uth orizing th e i mpor ta tion or pos se ssion of the fi r e ar ms (Respondent ' s bri ef p. 5 )~ and nei the r is i t fo r thc oming as a c on seque nce of a Presidential b a n. We are no t to confuse the circu m~ tances as th ey mig ht be but as they actu a ly were at the t ime of entry no r be misled on what p e ti~ i o n e r expects fo r hims el f i n t he wa y of entitl e ment bu t what he i s entitled to expec t f om an impo rtation e ffected or attempted contr ary to law. Respondent's view that the subject weapons, aside f rom the Col lector' s findings, were of e~t1al 16 5

~_, . I DECIS ION - CTA CASE NO . 23 55 -6 cer ta i nty "proh ibited lmpor t at ion" as def i ned in Sec t ion 10 2 (a )'� ~1p r~ , and thus j usti fy t he ir f or - I fe iture unde r Section 2530 ( f )~ supra, is fu lly . ;, shared by U Se Pe t itione r'� n i bble in fault ing respondent ' s author i t y i n super seding the Collector's ru ing coul d be a ind of an unwarr anted persi flage . Sec t ion 2313 o f the Tar iff and Customs Code square s t hat sta r ve l i ng a g i tation , thus, the Comm issioner o f Cus toms " s hall approve, mod ify or rever se the .� act i on or decis ion of t he Col l ec t or and ta ke s uc h steps a nd mak e s uch orde r s as may be nec es sa r y t o gi ve effec t t o hi s de c isi on. " And c e r t ainly, "the appe llate power o f t he Commiss ioner o f Ctis toms t o r eview sei zure and prot est c ases is not limited t o a review of t he i s s ues r a i sed on a ppeal . He may a f firm , mod i f y or r eve rse t he decis ion of the Coll ec- tor (Se cti on 231 3) .o other q es t ion s p rovided that his findings a d concl usions a e, as ih t he case at bar, s upported by ev i dence. It is of no consequence wha tsoever what were the ori g inal g~ounds of t he se iz ure and fo rf eiture i f, in point of i~ct, th0 goods ar e by law su bjec t to forfeiture (Wood v. u.s . 16 Pet . (US) 34 2, 10 L. Ed . 987) �. " Vierneza v. The Commis s ione o f Cus toms, G.R. L- 24 388 , July 30 , 1968. We hesitate to f urther fashion .J!l i. :.::: ..:;ur: .inl.u lC G !(

',' ! 'I _.. . DEC ISION CTA CASE O. 23 55 I .. 7 - I a s at'sfactorily se ttled legal situation . ' 8 I~ Moreove r , by ha v i ng decla re d t he mi li t ar y i we apons as "Use d Pe r s onal Effec ts " off ers no ~om- � fortin g a lte rn a ti ve . suc h could be a gr a sping � vu lga r ity in the ploy, an ef frontery that pr ovoke s disbelie f . Pe it ioner has overp ayed his under- s t and i ng of "persona l eff ects " and oversimplified what does not se em to fit. But candor would have proved dis astr ous for a ven ture he was unprepared ~ Pe titione r wa nted r e sults he go t conseque nces. "Wh i le it is true tha t f irea r ms may be for persona l use of the cla imant, neverthe les s , there is no known aut ho ri t y in Customs jurisdiction whic h have ru l e d t ha ' f i r ear ms ' are c onsidered personal e ffe c t s. On the contr a ry f i rear ms are always conside red as special ki nd of c hat te l c on sidering t ha t the im- port a tion o f wh i c h require s some s or of auth ority f rom the State . " (Col ecto r's decis ici~ . Aptly e noug h , we uphold. Althoug h the r each of the iss~e on which we r es t our dec i s ion r enders the considera tion of other subsidiary questions unnecessary , suffice it t o sta t e t hat , f i rst, pet it ioner has pl aced h i mse lf sharp y at odds wit h the st atutury ~r0s- cr i p tions, ma king unlawful for my person to 1mporl or possess an y firearm unless a llowed by law 16 '7

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2355 - 8- (Section 879, Revised ~dministrative Code)~ and, on arrival in the Philippines, having in his possession any f irearm or ammunitions for which . he has no license shall deposit the same, with'the Collector of Customs for delivery to the Chief of the Constabulary for safekeeping (Section 892, - � i b id.). Petitioner has failed compliance, either he was unwilling to take responsibilit1cs or simply una b le to discern what they are. Second, the ill .� considered and misguided attempt at concealment of the dismantled armalite rifles in such innocent and innocuous " sansui" baffles is no less of furtive significance. Such a specie of dodging and hidi ng wa s not propitious then , it cannot, LOW. These cir- cums t ances open decidedly contentious aff i l iating breaches which made a bad situation considerably wo r se for petition er. \\THEREFORE, the petition is hereby dismissed wi th costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED. Quezon C ity, Metro Man ila, May 31, 1983. 1 G~