By: KAT FERNANDEZ, MARIA BERNADETTE RAMOS AND NICO VALDERRAMA 1992 Question No.

8: A disgruntled employee of Apache Corporation reported to the Commissioner of Customs that the company is illegally importing electronic equipment by way of unlawful shipside activities thereby evading payment of customs duties and taxes on the goods. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Customs, upon the request of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB), issued warrants of seizure and detention and directed EIIB to seize the goods listed in the warrants. After the seizure of the goods and considering the magnitude of the value of the goods, counsel for Apache Corporation filed a petition with the Supreme Court for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to enjoin the Commissioner of Customs and his agents from continuing further with the forfeiture proceedings and praying that the Commissioner return the confiscated articles on the ground that the warrants were in violation of the Rules of Court and the Bill of Rights. 1. If you are a newly-appointed Solicitor in the office of the Solicitor General representing the Commissioner of Customs, how would you defend the latter? Give the specific defenses. Answer: Appurtenant to its power under the Tariff and Customs Code to enforce the provisions of such law, the Bureau of Customs may conduct searches and seizures even without the benefit of a warrant issued by a judge upon probable cause. This is historically considered an exemption from the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. 2. Assuming that the enforcement of the warrant had been extended to the residence of the President of Apache Corporation, is such enforcement valid? Explain. Answer: No. The Tariff and Customs Code authorizes customs officials and agents to search any building, except dwelling houses. 3. Do you think the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus filed by Apache Corporation will prosper in the Supreme Court? Discuss. Answer: No. The choice of remedy assumes want of authority and jurisdiction. Warrantless searches and seizures are however,

authorized under TCC. Such searches and seizures are not considered unreasonable within the meaning of the constitutional guarantee. Question No. 13: Under Section 2523 of the Tariff and Customs Code, the duty of verifying the correct weight of a cargo shipment is imposed upon the vessels master, owner or employee. If a discrepancy between the actual gross weight and declared gross weight of manifested cargo exceeds 20% and the Collector shall be of the opinion that such discrepancy was due to the carelessness or incompetency of the master or pilot in command, owner or employee of the vessel, a fine of not more than 15% of the value of the article may be imposed upon the importing vessel. ABC Corporations vessel was found, after appropriate administrative proceedings, to have violated the said provision far exceeding the 0% statutory limitation. The Collector of Customs imposed a fine of P22,600.00 (representing 15% of the value discrepancy) which was affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs. On appeal by ABC Corporation, the Court of Tax Appeals found the fine of P22,600.00 harsh and unreasonable for a first offense and reduced the same to P5,000.00. The Commissioner of Customs questions the scope of authority of the Court of Appeals in the determination of the fine imposable under Section 2523 of the Tariff and Customs Code. Whose judgment should prevail under the circumstances of the case. Explain fully. Answer: The judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals should prevail. The CTA has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving the imposition of fines, forfeitures or other penalties. 1993 Question No. 9: M/V Floria, a vessel of Philippine registry, was hired to transport beans from Singapore to India. The vessel was allegedly hijacked at sea and found its way to Bataan. It is also alleged that said beans are now with the List Co. and fake documents were used to show that the beans were imported from Japan. The Collector of Customs seized the M/V Floria and its cargo. The owner of M/V Floria filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court to obtain possession of the vessel and the beans. Does the RTC have jurisdiction over the case? Answer: The RTC has no jurisdiction. The Collector of Customs sitting in seizure and forfeiture proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions touching on the seizure and forfeiture of dutiable

goods. The RTC has no jurisdiction to pass upon the validity or regularity of the seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Bureau of Customs. (Commissioner of Customs vs. Makasiar, 177 SCRA 27) Neither has RTC review powers over actions concerning seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Collector of Customs which is reviewable by the Commissioner of Customs whose decision, in turn, is reviewable by the Court of Tax Appeals.