SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 126634 January 25, 1999
TRANSGLOBE INTERNATIONAL, INC., petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS and COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondents.
Separate Opinions
PUNO, J., dissenting opinion;
The petition at bar seeks to reverse the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 37866 which, in effect, barred herein petitioner Transglobe International, Inc. from redeeming its shipment from Hongkong which was seized by the Bureau of Customs after finding that the entries in its covering documents were false and fictitious.
It is respectfully submitted that the petition should be denied as petitioner failed to show that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in its ruling.ℒαwρhi৷
Sec. 2307 of the Tariff and Customs Code provides:
Subject to the approval of the Commissioner, the District Collector may, while the case is still pending except when there is fraud, accept the settlement of any seizure case provided that the owner, importer, exporter, consignee or his agent shall offer to pay to the collector a fine imposed by him upon the property or in case of forfeiture, the owner, exporter, importer or consignee or his agent shall offer to pay for the domestic value of the seized article. The Commissioner may accept the settlement of any seizure case on appeal in the same manner.
x x x x x x x x x
Redemption of forfeited property shall not be allowed in any case where the importation is absolutely prohibited or where the surrender of the property to the person offering the same would he contrary to law.
Under the foregoing provision, redemption is not allowed in three instances: (1) when there is fraud; (2) when the importation is absolutely prohibited; and (3) when the surrender of the property to the person offering the redemption would be contrary to law.
This case fails under the first instance. Respondent Commissioner of Customs has shown by clear and convincing evidence the existence of fraud in connection with the documentation of the seized goods. The undisputed facts reveal that the documents covering the shipment in question were falsified. The investigation conducted by the agents of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) yielded the following result:
1. The 40-foot van was made to appear as consolidation shipment consisting of 232 packages with Translink International Freight Forwarder as shipper and Transglobe International, Inc. as consignee;
2. There were eight (8) shippers and eight (8) consignees declared as co-loaders and co-owners of the contents of the van, when in truth the entire shipment belonged to only one consignee, petitioner Transglode International, Inc. The other consignees were fictitious.
3. Not one of the items declared as the contents of the van, i.e., various hand tools, water cooling, tower G-clamps compressors, bright roping wire and knitting machines was found in the van. Instead, the van was fully stuffed with textile goods.
These were not refuted, and therefore deemed admitted, by petitioner. The EIIB thus concluded that the shipment was made to appear to be an innocuous consolidation shipment destined for stripping at an outside Customs Yard-Customs Freight Services in order to conceal the textile fabrics. These falsities constitute fraud as defined in Section 1 of Customs Memorandum Order No. 87-92, thus:
FRAUD — the following cases herein enumerated demonstrate the presence of fraud:
1.a. the use of forged or spurious documents;
1.b. prima facie evidence of fraud under Section 2503 of the TCCP on undervaluation, misclassification, and misdeclaration in entry;
1.c. the use of false machinations, misrepresentation, concealment of facts that resulted in loss of revenues reaching levels that is unconscionable and unbecoming of a law-abiding taxpayer and citizen;
1.d. other cases similarly situated.
Thus, under the circumstances, petitioner may not be allowed to redeem the seized goods under Section 2307 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
I am not impressed by petitioner's pretension that it is innocent of the use of forged documents. Petitioner has admitted that it is the only consignee of the smuggled goods. It does not explain who else could have been responsible for the use of the forged documents. It is far fetched to assume that the criminal act can be attributed to the foreign suppliers or shippers for they do not have any motive to commit the falsification. Petitioner was summoned to shed light on the use of these forged documents in the seizure proceedings. Petitioner never appeared to explain.
I appreciate the majority's concern on the need for government to collect more taxes. But more important than this desideratum is the need to curb smuggling in our Bureau of Customs. The facts of the case at bar show an out and out attempt to smuggle highly dutiable textiles thru the use of forged documents. The use of forged documents is fraud under any habiliment. These textiles should be confiscated and sold at public auction. To allow their redemption is to sanction the circumvention of laws.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, I vote to DENY the petition.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
