The petitioner filed its IEIRD and paid the remaining customs duties due
on the subject shipment on 23 May 1996.
It was on 1 August 2000, or more than four (4) years later, that the
petitioner received a demand letter from the District Collector of Batangas for
the alleged unpaid duties covering the said shipment.
Thereafter, on 29 October 200I, or after more than five (5) years,
petitioner received another demand letter from respondent seeking to collect
for the entire dutiable value of the same shipment amounting to
P936,899,855.90.
1. Will the claim of
the COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS prosper?
No.
The right of the
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS has already prescribed.
Sec. 1603. Finality
of Liquidation. - When articles have been entered and passed free of duty or
final adjustment of duties made, with subsequent delivery, such entry and
passage free of duty or settlement of duties will, after the expiration of one
year, from the date of the final payment of duties, in the absence of fraud or
protest, be final and conclusive upon all parties, unless the liquidation of
the import entry was merely tentative.
In the absence of
fraud, the right of respondent to claim against it has already prescribed
considering that an action involving the entry and payment of customs duties
involving imported articles demanded after a period of one (1) year from the
date of final payment of duties, shall not succeed, pursuant to the clear
provision of Section 1603. Hence, even if the subject imported crude oil of
petitioner is by law deemed abandoned by operation of law under Sections 1801
(b ), in relation to Section 1301, of the Code, respondent's right to claim
abandonment had already lapsed since fraud is wanting in this case.
2. When is a shipment
deemed abandoned?
Mere failure on the
part of the owner, importer, consignee or interested party, after due notice,
to file an entry within a non-extendible period of 30 days from the date of
discharge of the last package (shipment) from the vessel, would mean that such
owner, importer, consignee or interested party is deemed to have abandoned said
shipment.
3. What is the effect
of abandonment of shipment?
Abandonment of
shipment (imported article) constitutes renouncement of all his interests and
property rights therein.
What are the
rationale of the strict compliance with the non-extendible period of 30 days?
Import entries
(IEIRDs) must be filed for imported articles within 30 days for the following
reasons:
·
to prevent considerable delay in the payment of duties and taxes;
·
to compel importers to file import entries and claim their importation
as early as possible under the threat of having their importation declared as
abandoned and forfeited in favor of the government;
·
to minimize the opportunity of graft;
·
to compel both the BOC and the importers to work for the early release
of cargo, thus decongesting all ports of entry;
·
to facilitate the release of goods and thereby promoting trade and
commerce; and
·
to minimize the pilferage of imported cargo at the ports of entry
The aforementioned
policy considerations were significant to justify a firm observance of the
aforesaid prescriptive period.
4. In order to render
the imported article abandoned, what should have caused the failure to file an
entry? Should there be negligence on the part of the importer?
The law does not
provide qualification as to what may have caused such failure in filing said
import entry within the prescriptive period in order to render the imported
article abandoned. The Court shall likewise make no distinction and plainly
apply the law as clearly stated. Hence, upon the lapse of the aforesaid
non-extendible period of 30 days, without the required import entry filed by
the importer within said period, its imported article is therefore deemed
abandoned.
5. Who shall be the
owner of the abandoned shipment?
Sec. 1802.
Abandonment of Imported Articles. An abandoned article shall ipso facto be
deemed the property of the Government and shall be disposed of in accordance
with the provisions of this Code.
6. Explain the term
“ipso facto” under Sec. 1802 of the TCCP and its effect on the transfer of
ownership to Government.
The term "ipso
facto" is defined as "by the very act itself' or "by mere
act." Hence, there is no need for any affirmative act on the part of the
government with respect to abandoned imported articles given that the law
itself categorically provides that said articles shall ipso facto be deemed the
property of the government. By using the term "ipso facto" in Section
1802 of the TCCP, as amended by R.A. No. 7651, the legislature removed the need
for abandonment proceedings and for any declaration that imported articles have
been abandoned before ownership thereof can be effectively transferred to the
government. In other words, ownership over the abandoned imported articles is
transferred to the government by operation of law.
7. Does the term ipso
facto under Sec. 1802 of the TCCP remove the requirement of due notice before
any imported article can be considered abandoned?
No.
As a general rule,
due notice is indeed required before any imported article can be considered
impliedly abandoned.
8. Explain the
application of due notice requirement to importer in case of abandonment of
shipment.
In the Chevron
case, the court observed that the minutes of the deliberations in the House of
Representatives Committee on Ways and Means on the proposed amendment to
Section 1801 of the TCC show that the phrase "after due notice" was
intended for owners, consignees, importers of the shipments who live in rural
areas or distant places far from the port where the shipments are discharged,
who are unfamiliar with customs procedures and need the help and advice of
people on how to file an entry.
9. Provide an instance
where “due notice” is not required in case of abandonment of shipment.
In case of finding
of fraud established against the importer, rendering it impossible for the BOC
to comply with the due notice requirement under the prevailing rules.
And in case of
knowledgeable importer which was familiar with the governing rules and
procedures in the release of importations.
10. Define the term
“entry” and “duty” in customs law.
Entry
Generally, in
customs law, the term "entry" has a triple meaning, to wit: (1) the
documents filed at the customs house; (2) the submission and acceptance of the
documents and (3) the procedure of passing goods through the customs house.
As explained in the
Chevron case, it specifically refers to the filing and acceptance of the Import
Entry and Internal Revenue Declaration of the imported article.
Duty
The term
"duty" used therein denotes a tax or impost due to the government
upon the importation or exportation of goods. It means that the duties on
imports signify not merely a duty on the act of importation, but a duty on the
thing imported. It is not confined to a duty levied while the article is
entering the country, but extends to a duty levied after it has entered the
country.
11. Explain ut res
magis valeat quam pereat.
Basic is the rule
that provisions of the law should be read in relation to other provisions
therein. A statute must be interpreted to give it efficient operation and
effect as a whole avoiding the nullification of cognate provisions. Statutes
are read in a manner that makes it wholly operative and effective, consistent
with the legal maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat.
12. Explain the
application of Sections 1301, 1801, and 1802, together with Section 1603 of the
TCCP in this case.
Thus, should there
be failure on the part of the owner, importer, consignee or interested party,
after due notice of the arrival of its shipment (except in cases of
knowledgeable owners or importers), to file an entry within the non-extendible
period of 30 days from the date of discharge of the last package (shipment)
from the vessel, such owner, importer, consignee or interested pany is deemed
to have abandoned said shipment in favor of the government. As imperative,
however, is the strict compliance with Section 1603 of the TCCP, which should
be read as we have ruled. Any action or claim questioning the propriety of the
entry and settlement of duties pertaining to such shipment made beyond the
1-year prescriptive period from the date of payment of final duties, is barred
by prescription. In the present case, the failure on the part of respondent to
timely question the propriety of the entry and settlement of duties by
petitioner involving the subject shipment, renders such entry and settlement of
duties final and conclusive against both parties. Hence, respondent cannot any
longer have any claim from petitioner. Sections 1301, 1801, and 1802 of the
TCCP have been rendered inoperable by reason of the lapse of the period stated
in Section 1603 of the same Code.
Indeed, if the
prescriptive period of one year specified in Section 1603 of the TCCP is not
applied against the respondent, the reality that the shipment has been unloaded
from the carrying vessels to petitioner's oil tanks and that import duty in the
amount of Pl 1,231,081.00 has been paid would be obliterated by the application
of the principle of deemed abandonment four years after the occurrence of the
facts of possession and payment, as a consequence of which application, the
petitioner would be made to pay the government the entire value of the shipment
it had as vendee of the shipper already paid.
13. Define Fraud
Generally, fraud
has been defined as "the deliberate intention to cause damage or
prejudice. It is voluntary execution of a wrongful act, or a willful omission,
knowing and intending the effects which naturally and necessarily arise from
such act or omission. For fraud to exist, it must be intentional, consisting of
deception willfully and deliberately done or resorted to in order to induce
another to give up some right. It is never presumed and the burden of proof to
establish lies in the person making such allegation since every person is
presumed to be in good faith. To discharge this burden, fraud must be proven by
clear and convincing evidence.
Section 361 l(c) of
the TCCP, as amended~ defines the term fraud as the occurrence of a
"material false statement or act in connection with the transaction which
was committed or omitted knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally, as
established by clear and convincing evidence." Again, such factual finding
of fraud should be established based on clear, convincing, and uncontroverted
evidence.
14. Enumerate the
elements of Fraud.
The elements of
fraud are the following:
·
the fraud must be established by evidence; and
·
the evidence of fraud must be clear and convincing, and not merely
preponderant
Upon failure to
establish these two (2) requisites, the presumption of good faith must prevail.
15. In this case, is
there a manifestation of fraud?
In the case at
bench, a perusal of the records reveals that there is neither any iota of
evidence nor concrete proof offered and admitted to clearly establish that
petitioner committed any fraudulent acts. The CT A in Division relied solely on
the Memorandum dated 2 February 2001 issued by the CIIS-IPD of the BOC in
ruling the existence of fraud committed by petitioner. However, there is no
showing that· such document was ever presented, identified, and testified to or
offered in evidence by either party before the trial court.
16. In a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law
may be raised. Enumerate the exception:
·
when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
conjectures;
·
when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
·
when there is grave abuse of discretion;
·
when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
·
when the findings of facts are conflicting;
·
when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond the issues
of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the
appellant and the appellee;
·
when the findings are contrary to the trial court;
·
when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific evidence
on which they are based;
·
when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's
main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent
·
when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of
evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and
·
when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts
not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a
different conclusion
17. What are the nature
of litigation brought to the CA?
Time and again,
this Court has consistently declared that cases filed before the CTA are
litigated de nova, party-litigants must prove every minute aspect of their cases.57
Section 8 of R.A. No. 1125, as amended by R.A. No. 9282,59 categorically
described the CTA as a court of record.
18. Discuss the manner
by which evidence can be recognized by the court.
Pertinent is
Section 34, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court which reads: Section 34. Offer of
evidence. - The court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally
offered. The purpose for which the evidence is offered must be specified.
From the foregoing
provision, it is clear that for evidence to be considered by the court, the
same must be formally offered. Corollary, the mere fact that a particular
document is identified and marked as an exhibit does not mean that it has
already been offered as part of the evidence of a party.
19. Discuss the
distinction between identification of documentary evidence and its formal offer
as an exhibit.
We said that the
first is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the marking of
the evidence as an exhibit while the second is done only when the party rests
its case and not before. A party, therefore, may opt to formally offer his
evidence if he believes that it will advance his cause or not to do so at all.
In the event he chooses to do the latter, the trial court is not authorized by
the Rules to consider the same.
The Rule on this
matter is patent that even documents which are identified and marked as
exhibits cannot be considered into evidence when the same have not been
formally offered as part of the evidence, but more so if the same were not
identified and marked as exhibits.
20. The BOC alleged
Fraud against Petitioner based on a Memorandum, which was not offered in
evidence. Will the contention of BOC prosper?
No.
Evidence not
formally offered during the trial cannot be used for or against a party
litigant by the trial court in deciding the merits of the case. Neither may it
be taken into account on appeal.
Moreover, the Court
could not judicial notice of the subject Memorandum being merely a part of the
BOC Records submitted before the court a quo, without the same being identified
by a witness, offered in and admitted as evidence, and effectively, depriving
petitioner, first and foremost, an opportunity to object thereto.
Consequently, this
is fatal to respondent's cause in establishing the existence of fraud committed
by petitioner since the burden of proof to establish the same lies with the
former alone.
21. Explain Judicial
Notice
Judicial notice is
the cognizance of certain facts which judges may properly take and act on
without proof because they already know them.64 Under the Rules of Court,
judicial notice may either be mandatory or discretionary. Pertinent portions of
Rule 129 of the Rules of Court provide as follows:
RULE 129
What Need Not Be
Proved
Section 1. Judicial
notice, when mandatory. - A court shall take judicial notice, without the
introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states,
their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the
law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals,
the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of
legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of
nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.
Section 2. Judicial
notice, when discretionary. - A court may take judicial notice of matters which
are of public knowledge, or are capable to unquestionable demonstration, or
ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.
Section 3. Judicial
notice, when hearing necessary. - During the trial, the court, on its own
initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial
notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon.
After the trial,
and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on
request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the
parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in
the case.
xx xx
22. May the court take
judicial notice of records of other cases?
No.
As a general rule,
courts are not authorized to take judicial notice of the contents of the
records of other cases, even when such cases have been tried or are pending in
the same court, and notwithstanding the fact that both cases may have been
tried or are actually pending before the same judge.66 However, this rule is
subject to the exception that in the absence of objection and as a matter of
convenience to all parties, a court may properly treat all or any part of the
original record of the case filed in its archives as read into the records of a
case pending before it, when with the knowledge of the opposing party,
reference is made to it, by name and number or in some other manner by which it
is sufficiently designated. Thus, for said exception to apply, the party
concerned must be given an opportunity to object before the court could take
judicial notice of any record pertaining to other cases pending before it.
Comments
Post a Comment