88 Bar Ops Pilipinas 2015 Philippine Association of Law Schools
RPTC. Paymentofthetaxassessedunderprotest,isacondition sinequanon
beforethetrial
courtcouldassumejurisdictionoverthepetitionandfailuretodoso,theRTChasno
jurisdiction to entertain it. (Manila Electric Co. v. Barlis, G.R.
No. 114231, May 18, 2001) Under then Sec. 30 of PD 464 [now under
Sec.226, LGC], having failed to appeal the
realpropertyassessmentstotheLBAA,taxpayernowcannotassailthevalidityofthetax
assessmentbeforethecourts.Forfailuretoexhaustadministrativeremedies,theassessment
became final. Under Sec. 64 of PD 464 [now under Sec. 252, LGC),
the taxpayer must first pay under protest and then assail the
validity of the assessment. (Davao Oriental Electric Coop vs. Prov.
Dvo. of Oriental, 576 SCRA 645) (ii)Appeal to the Local Board of
Assessment Appeals Under Section 226 of R.A. No 7160, the last
action of the local assessor on a particular assessment shall be
the notice of assessment; it is this last action which gives the
owner of the property the right to appeal to the LBAA. The
procedure likewise does not permit the property owner the remedy of
filing a motion for reconsideration before the local assessor.
(Fels Energy, Inc. v. Province of Batangas, G.R. No. 168557,
170628, February 16, 2007) (iii)Appeal to the Central Board of
Assessment Appeals(iv)Appeal to the CTA (v)Appeal to the Supreme
Court IV. Tariff and Customs Code of 1978, as amendedA.Tariff and
duties, defined "Customsduties"is"thenamegiven
totaxesontheimportationandexportationof
commodities,thetariffortaxassesseduponmerchandiseimportedfrom,orexportedto,a
foreign country. (Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 134114, July 06, 2001) B.General rule: all imported
articles are subject to duty.1.Importation by the government
taxable C.Purpose for impositionD.Flexible tariff
clauseE.Requirements of importation1.Beginning and ending of
importation Section 1202 of the Tariff and Customs Code provides
that importation begins when the
carryingvesseloraircraftentersthejurisdictionofthePhilippineswithintentiontounload
therein.Itisclearfromtheprovisionofthelawthatmereintenttounloadissufficientto
commenceanimportationand"intent,"beingastateofmind,israrelysusceptibleofdirect
proof,butmustordinarilybeinferredfromthefacts,andthereforecanonlybeprovedby
unguarded, expressions, conduct and circumstances generally.
(Feeder International Line, Pte., Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 94262, May 31, 1991) 89 Bar Ops Pilipinas 2015 Philippine
Association of Law Schools
Importationisterminatedonlyuponthepaymentofduties,taxesandothercharges
upon the articles, or secured to be paid, at the port of entry and
the legal permit for withdrawal shall have been granted. Payment of
the duties, taxes, fees and other charges must be in full. (Papa v.
Mago, G.R. No. L-27360, February 28, 1968) Under Section 1202 of
the TCCP, importation takes place when merchandise is brought into
the customs territory of the Philippines with the intention of
unloading the same at port. Anexceptiontothisruleistransitcargo
enteredforimmediateexportationwhichmaybe allowed under Section 2103
of the TCCP when the following concur: (a)
thereisaclearintenttoexportthearticleasshowninthebilloflading,
invoice, cargo manifest or other satisfactory evidence;(b) the
Collector must designate the vessel or aircraft wherein the
articles are laden as a constructive warehouse to facilitate the
direct transfer of the articles to the exporting vessel or
aircraft; (c)
theimportedarticlesaredirectlytransferredfromthevesseloraircraft
designatedasaconstructivewarehousetotheexportingvesselor aircraft
and (d) anirrevocabledomesticletterofcredit,bankguarantyorbondinan
amountequaltotheascertainedduties,taxesandotherchargesis
submittedtotheCollector(unlessitappearsinthebilloflading, invoice,
manifest or satisfactory evidence that the articles are destined
for transshipment). (Commissioner of Customs v. Court of Tax
Appeals, G.R. Nos. 171516-17, February 13, 2009) 2.Obligations of
importera)Cargo manifestb)Import entry The term "entry" in Customs
law has a triple meaning. It means (1) the documents filed
attheCustomshouse;(2)thesubmissionandacceptanceofthedocuments;and(3)the
procedure of passing goods through the Customs house. (Jardeleza v.
People, G.R. No. 165265, February 06, 2006) c)Declaration of
correct weight or valued)Liability for payment of duties
e)Liquidation of dutiesf)Keeping of records F.Importation in
violation of tax credit certificate1.Smuggling Smuggling is
committed by any person who: (1) fraudulently imports or brings
into the Philippines any article contrary to law; (2) assists in so
doing any article contrary to law; or (3)
receives,conceals,buys,sellsorinanymannerfacilitatethetransportation,concealmentor
saleofsuchgoodsafterimportation,knowingthesametohavebeenimportedcontraryto
law. (Jardeleza v. People, G.R. No. 165265, February 06, 2006) 90
Bar Ops Pilipinas 2015 Philippine Association of Law Schools The
Tariff and Customs law subjects to forfeiture any article which is
removed contrary to law from any public or private warehouse under
customs supervision, or released irregularly
fromCustomscustody.Beforeforfeitureproceedingsareinstitutedthelawrequiresthe
presenceofprobablecause;onceestablished,theburdenofproofisshiftedtothe
claimant. (Carrara Marble Phil., Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs,
G.R. No. 129680, September 01, 1999)
Inordertowarrantforfeiture,itisnotnecessarythatthevesseloraircraftmustitself
carry the contraband. There is nothing in the law that so requires.
(Llamado v. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. L-28809, May 16,
1983) 2.Other fraudulent practices G.Classification of
goods1.Taxable importation2.Prohibited importation
Prohibitedimportationsaresubjecttoforfeiturewhethertheimportationisdirector
indirect such as when the shipper and the consignee are one and the
same person. (Paterok v. Bureau of Customs, G.R. Nos. 90660-61,
January 21, 1991)
Althoughtheillegallyimportedarticlesmaynotbeabsolutelyprohibited,butonly
qualifiedly prohibited under Sec. 102 (K) of the Tariff and Customs
Code, for it may be imported
subjecttocertainconditions,itisnonethelessprohibitedandisacontraband(Comm.of
Customs vs. CTA & Dichoco, L-33471, Jan. 31, 1972), and the
legal effects of the importation of
qualifiedlyprohibitedarticlesarethesameasthoseofabsolutelyprohibitedarticles.
(Auyong Hian v. CTA, G.R. No. L-28782, September 12, 1974)
3.Conditionally-free importation H.Classification of
duties1.Ordinary/regular duties a)Ad valorem; methods of
valuation(i)Transaction value(ii)Transaction value of identical
goods(iii)Transaction value of similar goods(iv)Deductive
value(v)Computed value(vi)Fallback value b)Specific 2.Special
dutiesa)Dumping dutiesb)Countervailing dutiesc)Marking
dutiesd)Retaliatory/discriminatory duties91 Bar Ops Pilipinas 2015
Philippine Association of Law Schools e)Safeguard
I.Remedies1.Governmenta)Administrative/extrajudicial(i)Search,
seizure, forfeiture, arrest It is quite clear that seizure and
forfeiture proceedings under the tariff and customs laws
arenotcriminalinnatureastheydonotresultintheconviction of
theoffendernorinthe imposition of
thepenaltyprovidedforinsection3601 of theCode. Ascanbegleanedfrom
Section 2533 of the code, seizure proceedings, such as those
instituted in this case, are purely civil and administrative in
character, the main purpose of which is to enforce the
administrative finesorforfeitureincidenttounlawfulimportation of
goodsortheirdeliberate possession. (People v. Court of First
Instance of Rizal, G.R. No. L-41686, November 17, 1980)
Inadministrativeproceedings,suchasthosebeforetheBOC,technicalrulesof
procedure and evidence are not strictly applied and administrative
due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict
judicial sense.The essence of due process is simply an opportunity
to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain
one'ssideoranopportunitytoseekreconsiderationoftheactionorrulingcomplainedof.
(El
GrecoShipManningandManagementCorporationv.CommissionerofCustoms,G.R.No.
177188, December 04, 2008)
ItissettledthattheBureauofCustomsacquiresexclusivejurisdictionoverimported
goods for purposes of enforcing the Customs laws, from the moment
the goods are actually in
possessionandcontrolofsaidBureauevenintheabsenceofanywarrantofseizureor
detention. (Papa v. Mago, G.R. No. L-27360, February 28, 1968)
Regional trial courts are devoid of any competence to pass upon the
validity or regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings
conducted by the BOC and to enjoin or otherwise interfere with
these proceedings. Regional trial courts are precluded from
assuming cognizance over such matters even through petitions for
certiorari, prohibition or mandamus.(Subic Bay Metropolitan
Authority v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 160270, April 23, 2010) Even if
the seizure by the Collector of Customs were illegal, which has yet
to be proven, we have said that such act does not deprive the
Bureau of Customs of jurisdiction thereon. The
allegationsofpetitionersregardingtheproprietyoftheseizureshouldproperlybeventilated
beforetheCollectorofCustoms.
(Jaov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.104604,111223,October 06, 1995)
Aforfeitureproceedingisinthenatureofaproceeding inrem,
i.e.,directedagainst the res
orimportedarticlesandentailsadeterminationofthelegalityoftheirimportation.In
this proceeding, it is in legal contemplation the property itself
which commits the violation and istreatedastheoffender,
withoutreferencewhatsoevertothecharacterorconductofthe owner.
(Transglobe International, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
126634, January 25, 1999) Settlement of the case by payment of the
fine or redemption of the forfeited property,
priortothefilingofthecriminalaction,doesnotextinguishtheoffender'scriminalliability
92 Bar Ops Pilipinas 2015 Philippine Association of Law Schools
underSection3601oftheTariffandCustomsCode.(Peoplev.Desiderio,G.R.No.L-20805,
November 29, 1965) The requisites for the forfeiture of goods under
Section 2530(f), in relation to (1) (3-5), of the Tariff and
Customs Code are: (a) the wrongful making by the owner, importer,
exporter
orconsigneeofanydeclarationoraffidavit,orthewrongfulmakingordeliverybythesame
personofanyinvoice,letterorpaperalltouchingontheimportationorexportationof
merchandise;(b)thefalsityofsuchdeclaration,affidavit,invoice,letterorpaper;and(c)an
intentiononthepartoftheimporter/consigneetoevadethepaymentoftheduties
due. (Republic v. CTA, G.R. No. 139050, October 02, 2001)
Onceprobablecausehasbeenshownfortheinstitutionofforfeitureproceedings,the
burden of proof is upon claimant to establish that he fell within
the purview of the exception. The legal presumption in Section
5(j), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court and Article 541 of the Civil
Code are of a general character and cannot prevail over the
specific provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code. (Acting Commr.
of Customs v. CTA, G.R. No. 62636, April 27, 1984)
b)Judicial(i)Rules on appeal including jurisdiction
2.Taxpayera)Protestb)Abandonment
BoththeImportEntryDeclaration(IED)andImportEntryandInternalRevenue
Declaration(IEIRD)shouldbefiledwithin30daysfromthedateofdischargeofthelast
packagefromthevesseloraircraft.
(ChevronPhilippines,Inc.v.Commr.,G.R.No.178759, August 11, 2008)
c)Abatement and refund
V.JudicialRemedies(R.A.No.1125,asamended,andtheRevisedRulesofthe
Court of Tax Appeals) A.Jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals
1.Exclusive appellate jurisdiction over civil tax casesa)Cases
within the jurisdiction of the court en banc
TheappellatejurisdictionoftheCTAisnotlimitedtocaseswhichinvolvedecisionsof
theCIRonmattersrelatingtoassessmentsorrefunds.Section7of
RepublicActNo. 1125|||
coversothercasesthatariseoutoftheNationalInternalRevenueCode(NIRC)or
relatedlawsadministeredbytheBureauofInternalRevenue(BIR).(Commr.v.Hambretch
& Quist Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 169225, November 17,
2010)
