CTA Case No. 3784 (Decision)

REPUBLIC Of' TH�' PHILIPPINES COURT OF TAX APPEALS QUEZON ClTY ~ALTER SIGRIED MUNCH , C.T . Ae CASE NO. 3784 Petitioner , - versus - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS , Respondent ,. X - - .- - .- .- .- - - - - X DE C I S I 0 N Petitioner seeks to vacate the respondent Commis- sioner of Customs ' decis i on in Customs Case No . 83 -~ dated March 23 , 1984 , forfeit i ng in favor of the Govern- ment an i mportat i on of two ( 2) .units radio transceiver, two ( 2) .Pi eces adaptor and two (2) _pieces antennae , found violati'iTe of the Customs. laws. The records show that the petitioner is a permanent residen t al i en in the Philippines; that sometime on February 20, 1902 he br.ought into the Philippines from Hongkong the above-mentioned articles as part of his personal effects thru the Manila Inte~national Airpor t (MIA) _Customshouse ; that the Distric:t Collector of Customs thereat withheld r e�lease and instituted s e izure proceed- i ngs against the same as prohibited i mpo r ta tion unde r Letter of Instruction No. 13-A dated September 29, 19 72 and theref ore subject to forfeiture under the pertinent provision of Section 2530 (f) of the Tariff and Customs

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3784 - 2- Code ; that the i mportation was accordingly decreed fo r f~ited i n Seizure I dentification No. 4810-82 dated November 10 , 1982 as subsequently affirmed by the Com- mi ssioner of Customs in h i s decision , supra ~ By and large , pe~itioner would have the reexport- ati on of the equipment by having the decree of for- feiture reconsidered and reversed nestled on such j ustification, v i z.: 1) .good fai t h and lack of f raud- ulent intent and knowledge of the prohibiti on, and 2) .the off i ce of the National Telecommunication Commis- sion i nterposes no objection to the re-exportation of the s ame . The basic quest i on is nothing more than the effective application and enforcement of the pertinent provision of the Cus t oms l aws brough t to bear upon the circum- stanc:es of the case before Us . We a r e less impressed . by what petitioner alleges than what he f ailed compliance . l't: is hardly necessary to observe that petitioner points to no irregularity nor error of relevance and competence required to bash that patina of legality o"Jer the Customs' Order of f or fe i ture. The proffered good faith and disclaimer to any knowledge of the law can no onger be a prospect tha t c:an easily be reconciled wi th the i ntended imperat i ve. ' ..� Th e equipment sought to be entered has fallen short of measuring up to the compelling import and force of the

DECISION CTA CASE NO. 3784 - 3- rule. The desired relief must, as it did , end in a . no te of ineffectuality � Moreover , we are not to confuse the circumstances as they might be but as they actually were at the ~ime of e�ntr y nor be mis~ed on what petitioner expects for .. himself by way of entitlement but what he should expect from an i mportation effected or attempted contrary to law . The Presidential instruction provides , inter al i a , "confiscate all radio transmitters or tr ansceivers not du ly registered.. (LOI No. 13-A) '� and as amp l ified, the regulatory authority directs , 11 as a matter . of policy, we are not d isposed to giving any permit to purchase/ possess or license for install ation and operation of said sets" and 11 such equ ipment that are being brought into the country and passing thru the Customs be confis- cated and forfeited in favor of the Government if they are not covered by a duly issued and valid permit to purchase/ possess from this Commission ." (Letter of the Commissione:r of the National Telecommunicati on Commis- sion to the Collector. of Customs:, MIA, July 23, 1982) �. The articles are within that class of merchandise 11 the i mportation of which is effected or attempted contrary to law n subject to forfeiture under Se-ction 2530 (f) _of the Tariff and Customs Code. Indeed, there can be no further occasion to speculate upon how the statute should be enforced.

DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 3784 - 4- It is of no consequence whatsoever whether the importation was made in good faith by disclaiming knowledge of the existing legal constraint . It adds no i nsu l ating panacea; otherwise by one's own wrong the l aw can be flouted with impunity . We are not there- fore prepared t o attach any importance to this claim at "self-exoneration." It was not propitious then , i t canno t, now. The apparent short- order -whipped-up acquiescence of the Commissioner of the National Tele- communi c ation Commission for the r e-exportat ion of the forfeite d property seems mor~ generous than candid . Such c�ould be a clumsy attempt of defusing a peremptory irresistible legal s anction. I t would have stretched t oo far t he effect i ve range of authority. And , that is ne i the�r here nor there. Such a luxuriance of an expediency cannot be our "cup of tea", so to speak. As aptly stated by the r e spondent Commissioner of Customs , "The r e- exportation of the transceivers in question cannot be allowed inasmuch as i ntent to i mport has already been shown by the evidence , notwithstanding the fac t that the NTC i nter poses no objecti on� to their re-exportat ion." Let it suffice that "The Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction over i mported goods for the purpose of enforcemen t of the Customs laws from t he moment .the ' .' � goods are actually in its possession or control. " (Ponce Enrile v. Vinuya , 37 SCRA 381; Collector u

DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 3784 - .5 - o f Customs v. Torres , 45 SCRA 272; Virata v . Aquino 53 SCRA 24} �. And, "The Collector of Customs when si tt i ng i n forfeiture proceedings, constitutes a tribunal upon which the l aw con f ers j urisd i ction t o determine a ll questions touching the forfeiture and further di sposition of the i ll egal l y imported merchandise. " {Auyong Hi a n v . Court of Tax Appeals, 59 SCRA} �. Short of uncritical leniency we cannot say tha t any different c:onclusion ought to follow but t o apply thebw as we f ind it . Upon the r ecords before Us there i s noth i ng to take t he case out of the operative effects of the statutory pr oscr iption a s understood and appl i ed . "The law must be obeyed . I .t is not enough that i t may seem to us to be impol itic or even oppressive . It is not enough that in i ts ma king , great historical traditions of generosity have been ignor e d o Our duty i s done when we ascertain that it ha s kept wi t h in i ts power . " (People v . Crane, 214 NY 154} ~ So it appears that was no error in the decision appealed from and the same is affi r med and it is so ordered. Quezon Ci ty , Metro Manila , May 1 5, 1985 . WE CONCUR: � ROAQUIN Judge