OMEGA SIX GLOBAL CORPORATION & MA. DOLORES F. BANAAG/Z3 TRUCKING v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON CITY SPECIAL SECOND DIVISION OMEGA SIX GLOBAL CTA Case No. 10692 CORPORATION & MA. DOLORES F. BANAAG/Z3 Present: TRUCKING, BACORRO-VILLENA, Acting Chairperson, anc CUI-DAVID,]]. Petitioners, -versus- COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Promulgated: Respondent. x-------------------------------------- 1: 1.--t r�,.. DECISION BACORRO-VILLENA, J.: Before the Court is a Joint Petition for Review� filed on 02 December 2021, pursuant to Sections 3 and 4\ Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of thy Division Docket, pp. 17-44. 2 SEC. 3. Who may appeal; period to file petition. - (a) A party adversely affected by a decision, ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claims for refund of internal revenue taxes, or by a decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of Trade and Industry, the Secretary of Agriculture, or a Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction may appeal to the Court by petition for review filed within thirty days after receipt of a copy of such decision or ruling, or expiration of the period fixed by law for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to act on the disputed assessments. In case of inaction of the Commissioner of Internal revenue on claims for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the taxpayer must file a petition for review within the two-year period prescribed by law from payment or collection of the taxes. SEC. 4. Where to appeal; mode ofappeal. - (a)An appeal from a decision or ruling or the inaction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on disputed assessments or claim for refund of internal revenue taxes erroneously or illegally collected, the decision or ruling of the Commissioner of Customs, the Secretary of Finance, the Secretary of

CTACase No. 10692 Omega Six Global Corporation & Ma. Dolores F Banaag/Z3 Trucking v. COC DECISION x-- ---------------------------------------------------- -x Court of Tax Appeals (RRCTA}, filed by petitioners Omega Six Global Corporation (OSGC) and Ma. Dolores F. Banaag (Banaag}, doing business under the name of Z3 Trucking (Z3). The petition seeks the reversal of respondent Commissioner of Customs' (respondent/COC's} undated Resolution (assailed Resolution}, and which petitioners received on 22 September 2021. Petitioner OSGC is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, with business address at Barangay San Nicolas, Oton, Iloilo City. Co-petitioner Banaag is the sole proprietor and operator of Z3 engaged in trucking services for goods of any locations inside the Clark Freeport Zone (CFZ}, with business address at 4-2 Rue De Paree St., L&S Subdivision, Sto. Domingo, Angeles City, Pampanga. Respondent COC, on the other hand, is the duly appointed head of the Bureau of Customs (BOC) empowered, among others, to assess and collect duties on imported goods. The antecedent facts follow. At the onset, it must be noted that when the parties appeared in Court, they have manifested their willingness to submit the case for decision or resolution (citing their lack of objection to the facts obtaining in this case and that the case presents purely legal issues}. However, a perusal of the Joint Petition, Answer, the parties' respective Pre-Trial Briefs (PTBs), and their respective Memoranda would show that respondent denied certain factual allegations of petitioners. Considering further that they did not submit a Joint Stipulation of Facts and Issues (JSFI}, the Court is constrained to consider only such allegations which remain actually undisputed and are shown in the subsequent paragraphs below. Petitioner OSGC imported a certain shipment declared as "89 packages of Computer Casing Table Define S ATX Casing with Window (black}" (computer casings} filed under Entry No. C-3417. The saiy Trade & Industry, the Secretary ofAgriculture, and the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of their original jurisdiction, shall be taken to the Court by filing before it a petition for review as provided in Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The Court in Division shall act on the appeal.

CTACase No. 10692 Omega Six Global Corporation & Ma. Dolores F. Banaag/Z3 Trucking v. COC DECISION x-------------------------------------------------------x shipment was loaded unto a Hino Aluminum Van with plate number CAQ 9533 (subject vehicle) belonging to petitioner Z3. While still inside the CFZ, elements of the Clark Development Corporation's (CDC's) Business Research Unit (BRU) flagged down the subject vehicle. On 04 March 2021, Alert Order A/DC/DC0/2021-03-04- om was issued against petitioner OSGC's shipment. As found during the BRU's and the BOC's joint inventory on 05 March 2021, OSGC's shipment (subject shipment) contained: (1) 88 boxes x 4 small boxes/box x 10 units/small boxes (3,520 units of Realme c15) (cellphones); and, (2) One (1) box Nike Air Force 1 shoes. As a result, Warrant of Seizure and Detention No. CFZ 007-2021 was issued against the foregoing shipment and the subject vehicle. During the proceedings before the District Collector, petitioners submitted their respective position papers asserting, among others, that the foreign supplier made an error in the shipment and that the shipment itself was to be deemed as free importation pursuant to Section m63 of the Customs Modernization Tariff Act (CMTA). As for petitioner Z3, it claims that it is a common carrier and the subject vehicle should not have been seized. Later, the District Collector rendered a Decision dated 03 June 2021, ordering the forfeiture of the subject shipment and the seizure of the subject vehicle for violation of Sections n']'l, 1113(a), (f), (i), anf SEC. 1116. Seizure or Release ofGoods.- The District Collector shall issue an order of release or a warrant of seizure within five (5) days, or two (2) days in case of perishable goods, upon the recommendation of the alerting officer or any other customs officer. The District Collector shall immediately make a report of such seizure or release to the Commissioner. 4 SEC. 117. Regulated Importation and Exportation.- Goods which are subject to regulation shall be imported or exported only after securing the necessary goods declaration or export declaration, clearances, licenses, and any other requirements, prior to importation or exportation. In case of importation, submission of requirements after arrival of the goods but prior to release from customs custody shall be allowed but only in cases provided for by governing laws or regulations.

CTA Case No. 10692 Omega Six Global Corporation & Ma. Dolores F. Banaag/Z3 Trucking v. COC DECISION x------- ----------------------------------------------- -x (k)s, and 14oo6 of the CMTA, in relation to Natio nal Telecommuni c ati on Commission (NTC) Memorandum Circular No. o8-o8-o224AJ ' SEC. 1113. Property Subject to Seizure and Forfeiture. - Property that shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture include: hPioi(nnaarrt)socoeAovbxoimenpdreyeomnfdrrvteo,caermThthciahiioacarantllnteeyoq,rtheuvfPdeaeghsnovoistleroeiihtpdllieipesocasirlnoseseaer,hdiripavncfloerlosracrtssfoeutopn,lbur,vijrnpaeepcilcyraolticucsnrseedgau.sifcnTotohgrhofecvrtcraeaoamrhnnngieysvocrple,eoeoyw,tcrihhtanveirigenrcrsgyhcosierrnssalmhtg,frataauolniilgsrrsbcghnpreloooaeultfdrdttsu,iiegnnsodoeggrodupoadnanenslsryasbiwanooonftcachusoroedlmolmryormcmifcrnoasaenmrtfrhgtccuoeitaaog;irlgmrfqlioeepurdrofaerwngitttaohuitotiriicodeeh:nss oDg(froi)sotGhtdreioscoetoxdCfps,opoltrrhltoeaehctiitiobomnirt,peoohdfratvtiahmeteipobfoneorerotnmartueieorsx;nepdoo,rratareetxioponor rowtafetwrieohnei,cnhatenarderedaeltloffoebtcehteeudrsegodor oaadsttseinmwspthrtiuecmdh,ecnointnsttrihanerythotepoiinmlaiowpno, rootarftaitonhnye mg(inio)iostAhddneescyilsnapivmraeocidiklcaapergaeoctokroagftghoiemoo;sdpesorddteeeccdllaagrroaeotdidosinnwihtnhiccelhudiinsivnfogoiucanelldoourtphogenor opedaxscakmdaeigncealsatripoautnirotponocrttooendtblayeincthogenotoacdiosnninnteognt tsismpeopcofifrtitheeedd tecba(iitknampesu)gpeesaAue,fegrqfnhteeufeyadocinsptrcaeaaonntdsghnoceevceikoefson.ymoiuoTtratmwnrhiitscleogreeanhmedpatsgcpectseaartieunberoiraglzciiflseusolt,rhryhneeeavaudnaensundyedtnddahlnnaaafcocwtonoterytnfchuotfhheilfvsaeasceormcthatwrettia;uircnnoegaleesndngrpdloooesodrriffmtslgoteuiohlacfaoeshgrdeolmdstyor,baedonayusnsrssspesutudohcbo,rahjtftettvctocrhetaogehntneoisvtacphfeglooeeyerrranbftnetuwvictiteeniuhtthhricuecehsluieeaftnosdrsgdrhfeaeeaesrqlitltuthuahbiefripeoersmersAseouehscffnaafta,tiilctdlwia,tnehinontiehdstt (I) Goods sought to be imported or exported: (I) Without going attempted; through a customs office, whether the act was consummated, frustrated, or 6 cdcphumMSluuepeaEistraoissyCtcsdsncodei.i(l(mf((nienaa54si32ctssgc)s)))lss1al(aiee4rT2tfrdteOiesscTF0ih5aohxsissco0thosr0nnrmpuainopo.urt%o,olthsoueutuitnnroihoiaung)tgdgtnMreennegthhngoarwihiaesns,satfatsnteehthdenootrdatncertehthreycooutncaenewolfcuspoleagnaottdhqgbdemtlhotcrnhsirauhauhemaseeceestgatcrteyinrntogisiingrsndaontpteafnioiartendsnprgtinefcpauya,efgae(fedlrcf,f1cinaoffctotcl0ccariihtMaceqlccaof%layearesuietnxateiseesioa)soiidcssno,nplmcdieni,ttirfletuhronapisydidrnceeonvrhosso,uea.irsvooarrntpwvtiyltondiNifgrwlaicaoihlecetceovbafanesirtejafonerhiuocninorstdcdnedrdniisugirooevaigtupirocthcnnvimobcatnelfdet,iidxhtjarotpgheisoeaarfndouceatserrfffoU,retcyrgitcrxtcitochtrehoneaodbtwuiml,oectpdnaeolsigaeutrteohclgieiroaptarnsoguaeoedbovowaunllhmdvarroldiirtdoeterlcsb,eaboudbarh;hynerenbaydfioaixtogmetmfrrpitinatfhgteohmweonhexlenehmanraydepee,netentoeecga.auqosansouttodnuweieisfotoonidicudfewnnvnfdihedrcgehawsewcnioGrlamablih,eihaocftlsyonierearcsiigoetnnmlurshtdodetuhtcopljvstsshqeebeheouoetugceywrgrcofetatDnoohweesosdlmtoludftreihgynih,dsccoeewoecuihlsnendnraor;nrx,teegrdpodoptpaaoroisenerrmuoatroegfreiflrsnmoddpiontocntenstortanfiyagrm,e.nirr,;rf.rteiteiaeiofyonfd-rldfrf,r isfvivoTnnieaafrhttlddltyupeuluuereaalpte.myytyeiaoWieraisbsncnnlehuetldmenenposnttderasroe(txtt2hrachhvt5oneeoaayd0snlsb%uudietnspaeu)dtrpnutiooeiaosapvreifnbvdeidtdlahrwebceloeueedhartadnedwttfuhntjioeuote(:ryesIn(vnti0anama%)inwslteudth)hhnea;ieasttstoaitttoAaxdroibnsetcdhtlclthiruee,lsueaeghaldr.aeepeesslNdrdlcuiyalcorwavrcederahsieealutanutdhcrreoetocgrvuthumeafapatallisrruilnthlogyheseaepedpliteslosarnahbrilseddyeaeetijlhseooldicmcebrblttsoepcoepesoadorieygrmvsaraoeeiespnbddctoal,thefesrurvr;qeeeoladuolssuluiruutgvwhll(ehtatbehilaon)eetpgfghnnwaraetiiihntcnnthefoesoeonatrfatdtmwfdachiinitcoseasuiclciaadhrnrlledeuelcyrpcipnosluaadrpapnrnrrulaeceeciticyddyednt y

CTACase No. 10692 Omega Six Global Corporation & Ma. Dolores F. Banaag/Z3 Trucking v. COC DECISION X------------------------------------------------------ -X On appeal, respondent denied petitioners' plea for reversal of the District Collector's Decision in the undated assailed Resolution received by petitioners on 22 September 2021 (reiterating the alleged violations of petitioners). Hence, the present petition. In this petition, petitioners prayed for this Court (1) to give due course to their petition; (2) to reverse the assailed Resolution; and, (3) to order respondent to enter into a compromise with petitioners allowing the latter to pay thirty percent ()o%) fine without imposition of a soo% surcharge, and to recover the subject vehicle. On o6 December 2021, the Court issued Summons8 directing respondent to file his or her Answer within thirty ()o) days from receipt thereo� On 04 February 2022, respondent filed the Answer9 to petitioners' petition, stating that the seizure and forfeiture of the subject shipment were legal since the shipment was misdeclared and likewise, not accompanied by the required import permits. Moreover, the forfeiture of the subject vehicle was likewise legal as it transported the misdeclared shipment. Still later, on o8 March 2022, the Court issued a Notice of Pre-trial Conference10 setting the case for pre-trial on 18 May 2022. On w May or decision under the customs dispute settlement process involving difficult or highly technical question relating to the application of customs valuation rules. A discrepancy in duty and tax to be paid between what is legally determined and what is declared amounting to more than thirty percent (30%) shall constitute a prima facie evidence of fraud. When the misdeclaration, misclassification or undervaluation is intentional or fraudulent, such as when a false or altered document is submitted or when false statements or information are knowingly made, a surcharge shall be imposed equivalent to five hundred percent (500%) of the duty and tax due and that the goods shall be subject to seizure regardless ofthe amount ofthe discrepancy without prejudice to the application of fines or penalties provided under Section 140 I of this Act against the importer and other person or persons who willfully participated in the fraudulent act. ADD!TlONAL RULES AND REGULATIONS ON THE PURCHASE, SALE, LEASE AND/OR RETAIL OF MOBILE PHONES. Division Docket, p. 64. 9 Id., pp. 66-80. 10 !d., pp. 83-84.

CTACase No. 10692 Omega Six Global Corporation & Ma. Dolores F. Banaag/Z3 Trucking v. COG DECISION X------------------------------------------------------- X 2022, respondent submitted his or her PTB11 while petitioners filed their Joint PTB12 on 13 May 2022. During the pre-trial proceeding, on 18 May 2022, the parties manifested that there are no disputed facts and that there exist only purely legal issues. As a result, the Court ordered'3 the parties to submit their respective memoranda within 30 days from such order. Respondent filed his or her Memorandum'4 on o8 June 2022 while petitioners filed their Joint Memorandum's on 20 June 2022. On 22 June 2022, following the parties' submission of their respective memoranda, the Court submitted the case for decision.'6 ISSUES The issues, as can be extracted from the submissions of the parties, may summarized as follows: I. WHETHER THE SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF THE SUBJECT SHIPMENT AND IMPOSITION OF A soo% SURCHARGE ON THE DUTIES DUE THEREON ARE VALID; AND, II. WHETHER THE SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF THE SUBJECT VEHICLE BELONGING TO Z3 TRUCKING IS SUPPORTED BY LAW. ARGUMENTS Petitioners challenge the legality of the OSGC's shipment's forfeiture and the further imposition of a soo% surcharge on its liabilities. They argue respondent's action has no basis in law considering , that the seizure meets the conditions for settlement under Section 11241 II !d., pp. 85-9 I. 12 !d., pp. 125-132. 13 See Order dated 18 May 2022, id., p. 170. 14 !d., pp. 178-196. 15 Id., pp. 206-231. 16 See Resolution dated 22 June 2022, id., p. 257. 17 SEC. 1124. Settlement of Pending Seizure Case by Payment of Fine or Redemption of Forfeited Goods. - Subject to the approval of the Commissioner, the District Collector may allow the settlement by payment of fme or the redemption of forfeited goods, during the course of the

CTACase No. 10692 Omega Six Global Corporation & Ma. Dolores F. Banaag/Z3 Trucking v. COC DECISION X------------------------------------------------------- X of the CMTA. Petitioners further contend that the forfeiture of petitioner Z3's vehicle was improper, the same being a common carrier in accordance with paragraph 4.2.3 of Customs Administrative Order (CAO) No. 10-2o2o.'8 Respondent, on the other hand, argues that the subject shipment's seizure was proper since it was imported without the necessary NTC import permit, in violation of NTC Memorandum Circular No. o8-o8- 0224A. Respondent also claims that the seizure of the subject vehicle was warranted under Section 1113 of the CMTA since it was inside the said vehicle that the illegally imported goods were being transported. The Court's ruling follows. After a careful review of the records, the Court finds the present petition partly meritorious. While questions of law are involved herein as the parties so claimed, the records will also reveal that the issues would have been more properly settled had the case proceeded to a full-blown trial. Despite their stipulations that the questions to be resolved are purely legal, the Court finds that the settlement of the issues would rely mostly in establishing certain factual circumstances such as the presence of intentional fraud or the nature of petitioners' contractual relationship with one another./ forfeiture proceeding. However, the Commissioner may accept the settlement by redemption of any forfeiture case on appeal. No settlement by payment of fine shall be allowed when there is fraud or when the discrepancy in duties and taxes to be paid between what is determined and what is declared amounts to more than thirty percent (30%). (Emphasis supplied) \8 4.2. Conditions for Forfeiture. 4.2.3. Vehicles, vessels or aircrafts used in carrying smuggled goods in commercial quantity shall be forfeited except if all of the following conditions are present: a. It is a common carrier; b. It has not been chartered for purposes of conveying and transporting persons or cargo.... ; and c. The owner or agent at that time of Seizure has no knowledge of and participation in the unlawful act. However, a prima facie presumption against such vehicles, vessel or aircraft shall exist under any of the following circumstances: a. If conveyance has been used for smuggling before; b. lfthe owner is not in the business for which the conveyance is generally used; and c. If the owner is not financially in a position to own such conveyance.

CTACase No. 10692 Omega Six Global Corporation & Ma. Dolores F Banaag/Z3 Trucking v. COC DECISION x------- ----------------------------------------------- -x For one, petitioner OSGC mainly posits that there was no willful misdeclaration but rather an erroneous delivery on the part of its international supplier which could have been best proven by the presentation of its order form or invoice from the said supplier. Additionally, petitioner Z3's contention that it is a common carrier could have been proven by pertinent documents relating to its business and the contract it entered with petitioner OSGC. Although the parties attached documents to their respective submissions to this Court (in support of their claims}, the Court could not give them probative weight as they were not formally offered as evidence. Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court categorically states that "[t)he court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered." Jurisprudence, however, have carved out a single exception to the above rule. The Court may still consider a piece of evidence despite the lack ofa formal offer when (a} the same was duly identified by testimony duly recorded; and, (b) the same was incorporated in the records of the case.'9 Yet again, despite the parties' supposed documentary evidence being found in the case records, they have not properly identified (the evidence} in open court leaving this Court to rely on what appears as undisputed assertions in the records. On the issue of misdeclaration, the Court finds that intentional misdeclaration was not established aptly to warrant the imposition of a soo% surcharge, pursuant to Section 1400 ofthe CMTA. The said Section on this note states: When the misdeclaration, misclassification or undervaluation is intentional or fraudulent, such as when a false or altered document is submitted or when false statements or information are knowingly made, a surcharge shall be imposed equivalent to five hundred percent (soo%) of the duty and tax due and that the goods shall be subject to seizure regardless of the amount ofthe discrepancy without prejudice to the application of fines or penalties provided under Section 1401 of act.1 this Act against the importer and other person or persons who ~illfully participated in the fraudulent 19 Bank ofCommerce v. Heirs ofRodolfo De/a Cruz, G.R. No. 211519, 14 August 2017. 20 Emphasis supplied.

CTA Case No. 10692 Omega Six Global Corporation & Ma. Dolores F. Banaag/Z3 Trucking v. COG DECISION X------------------------------------------------------ -X Clearly, misdeclaration in the above provision must be qualified by the fact that the same is either intentional or fraudulent. There, although it is incumbent on petitioners to prove their allegations such as the supplier's alleged mistake, so must the existence of fraud be proven as a matter oflaw to justify such an onerous penalty. In Bureau of Customs v. The Honorable Agnes VST Devanadera, Acting Secretary, Department ofjustice, et al. ", the Supreme Court held that: The provision enumerates the various fraudulent practices against customs revenue, such as the entry of imported or exported articles by means of any false or fraudulent invoice, statement or practice; the entry of goods at less than the true weight or measure; or the filing of any false or fraudulent entry for the payment of drawback or refund of duties. The fraud contemplated by law must be intentional fraud, consisting of deception, willfully and deliberately dared or resorted to in order to give up some right. The offender must have acted knowingly and with the specific intent to deceive for the purpose of causing financial loss to another; even false representations or statements or omissions of material facts come within fraudulent intent. The fraud envisaged in the law includes the suppression of a material fact which a party is bound in good faith to disclose. Fraudulent nondisclosure and fraudulent concealment are ofthe same genre. Fraudulent concealment presupposes a duty to disclose the truth and that disclosure was not made when opportunity to speak and inform was present, and that the party to whom the duty of disclosure as to a material fact was due was thereby induced to act to his injury. Fraud is not confined to words or positive assertions; it may consist as well of deeds, acts or artifice of a nature calculated to mislead another and thus allow one to obtain an undue advantage. Moreover, the same provision declares that "[a] discrepancy in duty and tax to be paid between what is legally determined and what is declared amounting to more than thirty percent (3o%} shall constitute a prima facie evidence offraud".22 Considering that fraud has not been proved, neither is there a 30% discrepancy alleged between the dutieV 21 G.R. No. 193253,08 September2015. 22 Supra at note 6.

CTACase No. 10692 Omega Six Global Corporation & Ma. Dolores F. Banaag/Z3 Trucking v. COG DECISION X------------------------------------------------------- X determined and that declared to give rise to a presumption thereof, the Court finds no reason to maintain the imposition ofthe soo% surcharge. With the above, the fact remains that the subject shipment's importation was still not accompanied by the required permits from the NTC, making the seizure thereof proper under the circumstances. Although petitioners are correct that they may still procure import permits from the NTC to legitimize the importation of the subject shipment; the facts, however, do not disclose that they procured or attempted to procure the same to cause the subject shipment's release. At any rate, it is noted that petitioners no longer pray for the shipment's release after respondent had forfeited the same in Department of Education's favor (although the veracity thereof cannot be ascertained by the Court). In lieu of the subject shipment's release, petitioners merely pray that this Court compel respondent to enter into an amicable settlement with them to allow them to pay a compromise amount equivalent to 30% of the duties due on the subject shipment. Unfortunately, this is a remedy that this Court cannot simply grant. Article 2028 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines provides that, "[a] compromise is a contract whereby the parties, by making reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one already commenced." As a contract, a compromise agreement is perfected by mutual consent'3, to wit: Art. 1315. Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law.24 Therefore, the Court cannot legally compel respondent to enter into a compromise with petitioners against the former's will for doing such would subject respondent to suffer involuntary servitude against Section 18, Article III of 1987 Constitution which provides/ 23 Tranqui/ino Rovero v. Rafael Amparo as Judge ofthe Court ofFirst Instance ofManila, Branch //1, eta/., G.R. No. L-5482, 05 May 1952. 24 New Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 1315.

CTA Case No. 10692 Omega Six DECISION Global Corporation & Ma. Dolores F. Banaag/Z3 Trucking v. COG X������������������������ � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �������X Sec. 18.... (2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. lmipenraieosvvmtiaintkuagFelbugt,lhyravtetiheofsellsaaerummwncceeohedr,saeuin,anssctoeiermv"pd(eiteanid]rba,lttaecihsootesnonu,trrmreueascincunidtlsgtusiwineotghnhine.acfrotleumetchpnoercnoesm,Ceoinosrtuefrraitasgurmdgeieaivsmyevneosniottdhmwarbeoillhuleog"bw2he5 Now, on the matter of the subject vehicle's seizure and forfeiture, Section 4.2.3 of CAO 10-2020 provides: 4.2. Conditions for Forfeiture. tg4h.o2eo.3dfo�slVlionewhCiincolgmescm,oevnredcsiistaeilolsQnsouraarnaetiirptcyrreassfhetasnlltu:bseedfoirnfeciaterdryeinxgcespmt uifgagllleodf a. It is a Common Carrier; b. It has not been c. or transporting chartered for purposes of conveying persons or cargo...; and The owner or agent at that time knowledge of and participation in of Seizure has no the unlawful act. However, a prima facie presumption against such vehicles, vessel or aircraft shall exist under any of the following circumstances: a. If conveyance has been used for smuggling before; b. If the owner is not in the business for which the conveyance is generally used; and c. If the owner is not financially in a position to own such conveyance/ 25 New Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 1330.

CTACase No. 10692 Omega Six DECISION Global Corporation & Ma. Dolores F. Banaag/Z3 Trucking v. COC X------------------------------------------------------- X othfatht peeAPtghitaiilioinpn,petirhnZee3sCimsoaeurcretolmyisdmueonfinanbeclsaerartioceor.mmAamrktoeicnlaecn1ay7r3re2iveoirdfaetshnfceoeNl-lobewawsseC:divfilinCdoindge opafsafsseosrecinniaggAteitorrhtsn.esoi1r7re3sg2neo.rgvoCaidgcoseemsdomtroibonotnhtthech,aeprburyibbelulriasscni.andre,eswspaetoresfro, ncoasr,rracyiorin,rpgfoorroacrtoiomtrnapsne, snfpisroamrtitsoinnog,r tr1aheorgeg-2auSormdu2Tspoe.hnrtehGitssmii,sveetexihsCnasecouttheuC.deroteIluhnafircenRtklideitosigtofuhcnaloanutnhys:saDetsrveabivideneeeelnondcpaemtdoseounepptx,tpeeIordncrcitb.siynevg.SeAtqehncuettiiotpoynanirjout3ir.eD4iss2e'd6loaiocpfCtpiCoorunsAzin2a07gs,- tetca.oh.qi.reue[ccEinoluta)syumqwurjusrtuiietrstayiornsaefjdcpsueipltrcasiilttwsiiuoedotdfinicioa,sttnoaico.mauansnoegaaniibbvmgleeeoscnatthtsouoeistpreusraa,oodtivfiasoiapdtnoter.epcTistroushemlevtjiepupnnldugetgrtulepmenogjjuesaunselsttiitosnceffenltteiohrnxiecictbhehaixmsleieetesyrscnwpwitsehaehceneioradnefl poodwwaCbOcottewaehoehoSrcsrameteulaGearrrtrnpemCortctl.erhoE'iooioasdnIvganvnfntpnyianetpciaorucnnsaerattacndlthotcnwre,siriataotpnaniieittcettetohfdfehtrOcenuupe,dirfSteraafoeshtirlGtrmirnhelhetn.yOdcCeyiacMaesrSdetltdbhseoGoaotetsielshhrrcCeciiteevezenlhra'oadseeurcertvrregreebiaZeeemaocuitd3rorsioo,s.indoftsriflAtsonnid;dathkehsetcepfeoshceaarwdesrleecrpraoirtdusrrrduiyseaesoneaiaattslpolnniahllcoetiootfreonrniiesotngfe)pshpyndstvuroadhsoioibnbwnohdefojcegeieepfyfpytsncaehtooctchbtnbafneitsaeostetfdhittrtttpowwihawwppsenuaeoeiemtehdtteiutertainwpelnoitZtdoinene3poitnttllteinhlesp(efttweariewreisoordttheZiimnigZortott3evhoio3normitowecthinnZdsrheaaeoes3ssesyar 26 oGoCff.ofRecm.raimrNnrgoyoni.tnh1gCe9iaor8rr1sreti7rer2avrn,i-2css5ephsoaJrtalotlnirnutehgafereyprpat2uso0bsep1line6cgr;.seCornsitsao,tricoognropooodmrsaittoitoerdnb.so, tfhir,mbsyolranasds,owciaatteiro,nosreanigr,agfeodr in the business 27 compensation,

CTA Case No. 10692 Omega Six Global Corporation & Ma. Dolores F. Banaag/Z3 Trucking v. COG DECISION x-------------------------------------------------------x WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Joint Petition for Review ofpetitioners Omega Six Global Corporation and Ma. Dolores F. Banaag/Z3 Trucking is hereby PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, petitioner Omega Six Global Corporation is ORDERED to pay the assessed duties and other costs, without the sooo/o surcharge provided under Section 1400 of the Customs Modernization Tariff Act, on the subject shipment consisting of (1) 88 boxes x 4 small boxes/box x 10 units/small boxes (3,520 units of Realme CIS) (cellphones); and, (2) One (1) box Nike Air Force 1 shoes. Respondent Commissioner of Customs, on the other hand is ORDERED to RELEASE the Hino Aluminum Van with plate number CAQ 9533 costs. to petitioner Dolores F. Banaag/Z3 Trucking, without further SO ORDERED. '- I CONCUR: ~thn:� LANEE S. CUI-DAVID Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was the Court's Division. assigned to the writer of the opinion of r- l JEAN NlAK}dl Ass_9c1ate Justice Special DiVIsion Acting Chairperson

CTA Case No. 10692 Omega Six Global Corporation & Ma. Dolores F. Banaag/Z3 Trucking v. COC DECISION X------------------------------------------------------- X CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Special 2nd Division Acting Chairperson's Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. Presiding Justice