REMEDIES UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE 1

A. SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE OF GOODS AND COMMODITIES

Sec. 2207. Authority to Require Assistance. Any person exercising police authority under
1. SEARCH, SEIZURE AND ARREST the customs and tariff laws may demand assistance of any police officer when such assistance
Sec. 2201. Obstruction of Customs Premises. No person shall obstruct a customhouse,
shall be necessary to effect any search, seizure or arrest which may be lawfully made or
warehouse, office, wharf, street or other premises under the control of the Bureau of Customs,
attempted by him. It shall be the duty of any police officer upon whom such requisition is made
or any of the approaches to such house or premises.
to give such lawful assistance in the matter as may be required.
Sec. 2202. Special Surveillance for Protection of Customs Revenue and Prevention of
Sec. 2208. Right of Police Officer to Enter Inclosure. For the more effective discharge of his
Smuggling. In order to prevent smuggling and to secure the collection of the legal duties, taxes
official duties, any person exercising the powers herein conferred, may at anytime enter, pass
and other charges, the customs service shall exercise surveillance over the coast, beginning
through, or search any land or inclosure or any warehouse, store or other building, not being a
when a vessel or aircraft enters Philippine territory and concluding when the article imported
dwelling house.
therein has been legally passed through the customhouse.
A warehouse, store or other building or inclosure used for the keeping of storage of articles does
Sec. 2203. Persons Having Police Authority. For the enforcement of the customs and tariff
not become a dwelling house within the meaning hereof merely by reason of the fact that a
laws, the following persons are authorized to effect searches, seizures and arrests comformably
person employed as watchman lives in the place, nor will the fact that his family stays there with
with the provisions of said laws:
him alter the case.
a. Officials of the Bureau of Customs, collectors, assistant collectors, deputy collectors,
surveyors, security and secret-service agents, inspectors, port patrol officers and guards of the
Sec. 2209. Search of Dwelling House. A dwelling house may be entered and searched only
Bureau of Customs.
upon warrant issued by a judge or justice of the peace, upon sworn application showing
b. Officers of the Philippine Navy when authorized by the Commissioner.
probable case and particularly describing the place to be searched and person or thing to be
c. Any person especially authorized in writing by the Commissioner.
seized.
d. Officers generally empowered by law to effect arrests and execute processes of courts,
when acting under direction of the Collector.
Sec. 2210. Right to Search Vessels or Aircrafts and Persons or Articles Conveyed
e. Any person especially authorized by a Collector, subject to the restrictions stated in the
Therein. It shall be lawful for any official or person exercising police authority under the
next succeeding section.
provisions of this Code to go abroad any vessel or aircraft within the limits of any collection to go
aboard any vessel or aircraft within the limits of any collection district, and to inspect, search and
Persons exercising the powers hereinabove conferred shall, in the exercise thereof, have the
examine said vessel or aircraft and any trunk, package, box or envelope on board, and to search
same authority, be entitled to the proper protection, and shall be governed by the same law, not
any person on board the said vessel or aircraft and to this end to hail and stop such vessel or
inconsistent with the provisions of this section, as other officers exercising police authority in
aircraft if under way, to use all necessary force to compel compliance; and if it shall appear that
general.
any breach or violation of the customs and tariff laws of the Philippines has been committed,
whereby or in consequence of which such vessels or aircrafts, or the article, or any part thereof,
Sec. 2204. Place Where Authority May Be Exercised. Persons acting under authority
on board of or imported by such vessel or aircraft, is liable to forfeiture, to make seizure of the
conferred pursuant to subsection (e) of the preceding section may exercise their authority
same or any part thereof.
*within the limits of the collection district only and *in or upon the particular vessel or aircraft, or
*in the particular place, or in respect to the particular article specified in the appointment. All
The power of search hereinabove given shall extend to the removal of any false bottom,
such appointments shall be in writing, and the original shall be filed in the customhouse of the
partition, bulkhead or other obstruction, so far as may be necessary to enable the officer to
district where made.
discover whether any dutiable or forfeitable articles may be concealed therein.
No proceeding herein shall give rise to any claim for the damage thereby caused to article or
All other persons exercising the powers hereinabove conferred may exercise the same at any
vessel or aircraft.
place within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs.
Sec. 2211. Right to Search Vehicles, Beasts and Persons. It shall also be lawful for a
Sec. 2205. Exercise of Power of Seizure and Arrest. It shall be within the power of a
person exercising authority as aforesaid to open and examine any box, trunk, envelope or other
customs official or person authorized as aforesaid, and it shall be his duty, to make seizure of
container, wherever found where he has reasonable cause to suspect the presence therein of
any vessel, aircraft, cargo, articles, animal or other movable property when the same is subject
dutiable or prohibited article or articles introduced into the Philippines contrary to law, and
to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws, and also to arrest any
likewise to stop, search and examine any vehicle, beast or person reasonably suspected of
person subject to arrest for violation of any customs and tariff laws, such power to be exercised
holding or conveying such article as aforesaid.
in conformity with the law and the provisions of this Code.
Sec. 2212. Search of Persons Arriving From Foreign Countries. All persons coming into the
Sec. 2206. Duty of Officer or Official to Disclose Official Character. It shall be the duty of
Philippines from foreign countries shall be liable to detention and search by the customs
any person exercising authority as aforesaid, upon being questioned at the time of the exercise
authorities under such regulations as may be prescribed relative thereto.
thereof, to make known his official character as an officer or official of the Government, and if his
Female inspectors may be employed for the examination and search of persons of their own
authority is derived from special authorization in writing to exhibit the same for inspection, if
sex.
demanded.

cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.m
endoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha
REMEDIES UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE
2. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
Sec. 2301. Warrant for Detention of Property Bond. Upon making any seizure, the Collector
shall issue a warrant for the detention of the property; and if the owner or importer desires to
secure the release of the property for legitimate use, the Collector may surrender it upon the
filing of a sufficient bond, in an amount to be fixed by him, conditioned for the payment of the
appraised value of the article and/or any fine, expenses and costs which may be adjudged in the
case: Provided, That articles the importation of which is prohibited by law shall not be released
under bond.
Sec. 2302. Report of Seizure To Commissioner and Auditor. When a seizure is made for
any cause, the Collector of the district wherein the seizure is effected shall immediately make
report thereof to the Commissioner and to the Auditor General.
Sec. 2303. Notification to Owner or Importer. The Collector shall give the owner or importer
of the property or his agent a written notice of the seizure and shall give him an opportunity to be
heard in reference to the delinquency which was the occasion of such seizure.
For the purpose of giving such notice and of all other proceedings in the matter of such seizure,
the importer, consignee or person holding the bill of lading shall be deemed to be the "owner" of
the article included in the bill.
For the same purpose, "agent" shall be deemed to include not only any agent in fact of the
owner of the seized property but also any person having responsible possession of the property
at the (missing) of the seizure, if the owner or his agent in fact is unknown or cannot be reached.
Sec. 2304. Notification to Unknown Owner. Notice to an unknown owner shall be effected
by posting a notice for fifteen days in the public corridor of the customhouse of the district in
which the seizure was made, and, in the discretion of the Commissioner, by publication in a
newspaper or by such other means as he shall consider desirable.
Sec. 2305. Description and Appraisal and Classification of Seized Property. The Collector
shall also cause a list and particular description of the property seized to be prepared and an
appraisement or classification of the same at its wholesale value in the local market in the usual
wholesale quantities to be made by at least two appraising officials, if there are such officials at
or near the place of seizure; in the absence of such officials, then by two competent and
disinterested citizens of the Philippines, to be selected by him for that purpose, residing at or
near the place of seizure, which list and appraisement shall be properly attested to by such
Collector and the persons making the appraisal.
Sec. 2306. Proceedings in Case of Property Belonging to Unknown Parties. If, within
fifteen days after the notification prescribed in section twenty-three hundred and four of this
Code, no owner or agent can be found or appears before the Collector, the latter shall declare
the property forfeited to the government to be sold at auction in accordance with law.
Sec. 2307. Settlement of Case by Payment of Fine or Redemption of Forfeited Property.
If, in any seizure case, the owner or agent shall, while the case is yet before the Collector of the
district of seizure, pay to such Collector the fine imposed by him or, in case of forfeiture, shall
pay the appraised value of the property, or, if after appeal of the case, he shall pay to the
Commissioner the amount of the fine as finally determined by him, or, in case of forfeiture, shall
pay the appraised value of the property, such property shall be forthwith surrendered, and all
liability which may or might attach to the property by virtue of the offense which was the
occasion of the seizure and all liability which might have been incurred under any bond given by
the owner or agent in respect to such property shall thereupon be deemed to be discharged.
cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.m
endoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha
2
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 to redeem the
same would be contrary to law.
Sec. 2308. Protest and Payment upon Protest in Civil Matters. When a ruling or decision of
the Collector is made whereby liability for duties, fees, or other money charge is determined,
except the fixing of fines in seizure cases, the party adversely affected may protest such ruling
or decision by presenting to the Collector at the time when payment of the amount claimed to be
due the Government is made, or within thirty days thereafter, a written protest setting forth his
objections to the ruling or decision in question, together with the reasons therefor. No protest
shall be considered unless payment of the amount due after final liquidation has first been
made.
Sec. 2309. Protest Exclusive Remedy in Protestable Case. In all cases subject to protest,
the interested party who desires to have the action of the Collector reviewed, shall make a
protest, otherwise, the action of the Collector shall be final and conclusive against him, except
as to matters correctible for manifest error in the manner prescribed in section one thousand
seven hundred and seven hereof.
Sec. 2310. Form and Scope of Protest. Every protest shall be filed in accordance with the
prescribed rules and regulations promulgated under this section and shall point out the particular
decision or ruling of the Collector to which exception is taken or objection made, and shall
indicate with reasonable precision the particular ground or grounds upon which the protesting
party bases his claim for relief.
The scope of a protest shall be limited to the subject matter of a single adjustment or other
independent transaction; but any number of issue may be raised in a protest with reference to
the particular item or items constituting the subject matter of the protest.
"Single adjustment", as hereinabove used, refers to the entire content of one liquidation,
including all duties, fees, surcharges or fines incident thereto.
Sec. 2311. Samples to be Furnished by Protesting Parties. If the nature of the articles
permit, importers filing protests involving questions of fact must, upon demand, supply the
Collector with samples of the articles which are the subject matter of the protests. Such samples
shall be verified by the custom official who made the classification against which the protest are
filed.
Sec. 2312. Decision or Action by Collector in Protest and Seizure Cases. When a protest
in proper form is presented in a case where protest in required, the Collector shall reexamine the
matter thus presented, and if the protest is sustained, in whole or in part, he shall enter the
appropriate order, the entry reliquidated if necessary.
In seizure cases, the Collector, after a hearing, shall in writing make a declaration of forfeiture or
fix the amount of the fine or take such other action as may be proper.
Sec. 2313. Review by Commissioner. The person aggrieved by the decision or action of the
Collector in any matter presented upon protest or by his action in any case of seizure may, within
fifteen days after notification in writing by the Collector of his action or decision, give written
notice to the Collector of his desire to have the matter reviewed by the Commissioner.
Thereupon the Collector shall forthwith transmit all the records of the proceedings to the
Commissioner, who shall approve, modify or reverse the action or decision of the Collector and
take such steps and make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to his decision.
REMEDIES UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE 3
conducted among the bidders of the particular sale lot who are present with the
Sec. 2314. Notice of Decision of Commissioner. Notice of the decision of the Commissioner highest bid serving as new floor price…
shall be given to the party by whom the case was brought before him for review, and in seizure [s10] awarding of sale
cases such notice shall be effected by personal service if practicable. [s11]failed bidding
[s12] 2nd bidding
Sec. 2315. Supervisory Authority of Commissioner And of Department Head in Certain [s13] negotiated sale
Cases. If in any case involving the assessment of duties the importer shall fail to protest the [s14] mandatory reporting of the 2nd failed bidding
ruling of the Collector, and the Commissioner shall be of the opinion that the ruling was [s15] committee on negotiated sale
erroneous and unfavorable to the Government, the latter may order a reliquidation; and if the [s16] requirements and procedure in negotiated sale
ruling of the Commissioner in any unprotested case should, in the opinion of the department …
head, be erroneous and unfavorable to the Government, the department head may require the
Commissioner to order a reliquidation.
3. COMPULSORY ACQUISITION
Except as in the preceding paragraph provided, the supervisory authority of the department CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 5-2001: IMPLEMENTING RA 9135: AN ACT
head over the Bureau of Customs shall not extend to the administrative review of the ruling of AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF PD 1464 (TCC)
the Commissioner in matters appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals. AS AMENDED BY…CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 4-2004 (BUT I DON’T HAVE A
COPY OF THIS CAO)
Customs Administrative Order No. 10-2007 (November 28, 2007): Rules
and Regulations in the Conduct of Public Auction and Negotiated Sale Section 18
[s1]: cover the disposition of articles under customs custody (Sec2601, TCCP) [S1] Objectives
through public auction or negotiated sale [s2] Dutiable Value
[S2]: articles under customs custody shall be disposed through sale by public II. Administrative provisions
auction (UNLESS: special provision of law) A. Reference Value as Risk Management Tool – use custom value or any other
[S3]: Floor Price in Auction Sale: not less than the wholesale value of the canvassed value reference to establish doubt or alert Customs to do a value
domestic wholesale price of the same, like or similar articles and in the usual verification check
wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade (determined by the B. Currency Conversion: rate of exchange shall be the duly published rates
concerned examiners/appraisers + subject to approval of the Chief, ACDD and published by BSP + reflect as effectively as possible the current value of
District Collector) currency in commercial transactions
-not be less than the sum of the total landed cost based on the C. Release under Sufficient Guarantee –
published/circularized VRIS-OCOM test value + taxes …
-take into consideration: obsolence + condition + reasonable depreciation V. Compulsory Acquisition
[S4]: Notice of public auction: prepared by the Chief ACDD or ist equivalent unit -in order to protect the Government’s revenues against undervaluation of goods
-approved by the District Collector subject to ad valorem duty
-contains: …Commissioner of Customs may acquire grossly undervalued goods for a price
a. specific time, date and place for the auction sale equal to the declared Customs value + any duties already paid on the goods
b. Lot No. per sale lot; names of consignee -payment made within 10 working days from issuance of a warrant sighned by
c. specific description of goods… Commissioner for acquisition of goods
d. floor price per sale lot GROSS UNDERVALUATION: when the discrepancy between the declared Customs
e. specific date, time and place for the inspection of all the items/lots which shall be value and any of the test values is 200% or higher:
2 days before auction date
f. terms and conditions of the public auction Difference between the test value and declared value/declared value x 100
[s5]: Submission of the Notice of Sale to the Commissioner for Monitoring Purposes:
Chief, ACDD shall furnish the Commissioner of Customs a copy of the Notice and
submit the ff: documents: inventory + certificate of finality of forfeiture/declaration B. JUDICIAL ACTION AGAINST THE TAXPAYER
of abandonment/order of the District Collector +certification from the assigned Sec. 2401. Supervision and Control over Judicial Proceedings. In the absence of special
examiner/appraiser attesting that goods are perishable provision, judicial action and proceedings instituted on behalf of the Government pursuant to the
[s6]: publication and posting notice of sale provisions of this Code shall be subject to the supervision and control of the Commissioner.
[s7]: conditions for registration and participation in public bidding
[s8]: Sealed bid system Sec. 2402. Review by Court of Tax Appeals. The party aggrieved by a ruling of the
[s9] Clustering system: occurs when the difference between the highest and the Commissioner in any matter brought before him upon protest or by his action or ruling in any
second highest bid is within 10% of the highest bid. Opening bidding shall be case of seizure may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals, in the manner and within the period
prescribed by law and regulations.

cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.m
endoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha
REMEDIES UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE 4
Unless an appeal is made to the Court of Tax Appeals in the manner and within the period Secretary of Finance upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Customs. The criteria for
prescribed by laws and regulations, the action or ruling of the Commissioner shall be final and selecting firms to be audited shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
conclusive.
(a) Relative magnitude of customs revenue from the firm;
(b) The rates of duties of the firm's imports;
C. POST ENTRY AUDIT (c) The compliance tract records of the firm; and
Sec. 3514. Requirement to Keep Records. - All importers are required to keep at their
(d) An assessment of the risk to revenue of the firm's import activities.
principal place of business, in the manner prescribed by regulations to be issued by the
Commissioner of Customs and for a period three (3) years from the date of importation, all the
(2) When errors in the import declaration are detected;
records of their importations and/or books of accounts, business and computer systems and all
(3) When firms voluntarily request to be audited, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of
customs commercial data including payment records relevant for the verification of the accuracy
Customs.
of the transaction value declared by the importers/customs brokers on the import entry.chan
robles virtual law library
(b) Brokers shall be audited to validate audits of their importer clients and/or fill information gaps
All brokers are required to keep at their principal place of business, in the manner prescribed by
revealed during an audit of their importers clients.
regulations to be issued by the Commissioner of Customs and for a period of three (3) years
from the date of importation copies of the above mentioned records covering transactions that
Section 3517. Documents in Foreign Language. - Where a document in a foreign language is
they handle."
presented to a customs officer in relation to the carrying out of any duty or the exercise of any
Section 3515. Compliance Audit or Examination of Records. - The importers/customs
power of the Bureau of Customs under this Code, said document in a foreign language must be
brokers shall allow any customs officer authorized by the Bureau of Customs to enter during
accompanied with a translation in the official language of this country."
office hours any premises or place where the records referred to in the preceding section are
kept to conduct audit examination, inspection, verification and/or investigation of those records
Sec. 3518. Records to Be Kept by Customs. – The Bureau of Customs shall likewise keep a
either in relation to specific transactions or to the adequacy and integrity of the manual or
record of audit results in a database of importer and broker profiles, to include but not be limited
electronic system or systems by which such records are created and stored. For this purpose. A
to:
duty authorized customs officer shall be full and free access to all books, records, and
documents necessary or relevant for the purpose of collecting the proper duties and taxes.
(a) Articles of Incorporation;
In addition, the authorized customs officer may make copies of, or take extracts from any such
(b) The company structure, which shall include but not be limited to:
documents. The records or documents must, as soon as practicable after copies of such have
been taken, be returned to the person in charge of such documents.
(1) Incorporators and Board of Directors;
A copy of any such document certified by or on behalf of the importer/broker is admissible in
(2) Key officers; andchan robles virtual law library
evidence in all courts as if it were the original.
(3) Organizational structure;
An authorized customs officer is not entitled to enter any premises under this Section unless,
before so doing, the officer produces to the person occupying or apparently in charge of the
(c) Key importations;
premises written evidence of the fact that he or she is an authorized officer. The person
(d) Privileges enjoyed;
occupying or apparently in charge of the premises entered by an officer shall provide the officer
(e) Penalties; and
with all reasonable facilities and assistance for the effective exercise of powers under this
(f) Risk category(ies).
Section.
Unless otherwise provided herein or in other provisions of law, the Bureau of Customs may, in …
case of disobedience, invoke the aid of the proper regional trial court within whose jurisdiction CAO 5-2001
the matter falls. The court may punish contumacy or refusal as contempt. In addition, the fact B. Compliance Audit
that the importer/broker denies the authorized customs officer full and free access to importation 1. Importers/Customs broker shall allow any Customs officer authorized by the
records during the conduct of a post-entry audit shall create a presumption of inaccuracy in the Commissioner of Customs to enter during office hours any premises or place where
transaction value declared for their imported goods and constitute grounds for the Bureau of the records are kept to conduct audit, examination, inspection, verification and/or
Customs to conduct a re-assessment of such goods. investigation of:
This is without prejudice to the criminal sanctions imposed by this Code and administrative a. document flow
sanctions that the Bureau of Customs may impose against contumacious importers under b. financial flow
existing laws and regulations including the authority to hold delivery or release of their imported c. goods inventory
articles. d. other business processes

Section 3516. Scope of the Audit. – Necessary/relevant in determining the adequacy and integrity of the
(a) The audit of importers shall be undertaken: manual/electronic system/s by which such records are created and stored and to
(1) When firms are selected by a computer-aided risk management system, the parameters of ensure compliance with Customs laws and existing rules and regulations…?
which are to be based on objective and quantifiable data and are to be approved by the

cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.m
endoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha
REMEDIES UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE
2. Authorized Customs officer may require importer and/or broker to make certified
copies of any such documents/extracts
-any record must be returned to custodian within 24 hours
3. copy of such document certified by/on behalf of the importer/broker: admissible in
evidence in all courts as if it were original
4. authorized customs officer shall not enter any premises UNLESS before doing
so, the officer produces to the person in charge of the premises the ff:
a. duplicate original of the AUDIT NOTIFICATION LETTER
b. official customs ID
5. Unless otherwise provided, the BOC may, in case of disobedience, invoke the aid
of the proper RTC w/n whose jurisdiction the matter falls
6. w/o prejudice to criminal sanctions imposed by laws and administrative sanctions
that the BOC may impose against contumacious importers, including authority to
hold delivery or release of their imported articles
C. Scope of the Compliance Audit
1. Audit undertaken when:
a. firms are selected by a computer-aided risk management system, parameters of
which based on objective and quantifiable data which shall include (not exclusive):
…relative magnitude of customs revenue from the firm
…rates of duties of the firm’s imports
…compliance track record of the firm
…assessment fo the risk to revenue of the firm’s import activities
b. when errors in the import declaration are detected, if uncorrected would result in
substantial revenue loss/grave distortion of relevant statistical data
c. firms voluntary requests
2. Brokers shall be audited only to validate audits of their importers/ fill in
information gaps revealed during audit of importer clients
D. Conduct of Compliance Audit
Amendments
CAO no. 2-2002
IV. Compliance Audit Operations
Pending the creation of Post Entry Audit Office, the post entry audit system shall be
initially handled by the interim Post Entry Audit Unit as defined under Customs
Special Order No. 50-2001
PEA Process:
A. Selecting Firms for Audit using Risk Management Approach: 2 types of audit
1. VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AUDIT: conducted under BOC’s Compliance Program,
developed to make compliant those firms that contribute up to 80% of customs
revenue
-voluntary
cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.m
endoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha
5
-successful applicant firms shall be chosen using criteria that determine their
respective risk levels
-focus on determining whether the firm’s systems and procedures, particularly its
inventory, financial and record-keeping systems, all lead to the generation of
compliant customs declarations
2. Enforced compliance audit: conducted on firms that are not included in the
compliance program + have been found to have compliance issues
-chosen from among those tagged for audit:
a. by the collectors of customs as a result of VCRC review
b. by TIRAU created under CSO 50-2001 as a result of its periodic analysis
c. as a result of enforcement operations
B. Profiling and Information Analysis
a. gathering information by downloading customs data on the targeted importer,
collating information from other sources both internally and externally
b. profiling the company’s activities on the basis of the captured data
c. identifying risk shipments according to issues involved for verification purposes
d. sampling of exception reports according to nature of variances
e. reviewing of past decisions of BOC vis-à-vis the selected shipments
f. preparing a report for the Commissioner to serve as basis for the grant of authority
to serve as basis for the grant of authority to conduct field audit
C. Audit Notification
D. Audit Preparation/Audit Plan
E. Pre-Audit Conference with Auditee
F. Conduct of Audit Proper – Field Audit
G. Exit Conference
H. Audit Reporting
I. Audit Monitoring and Implementation
D. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs over importation of Artiles
Section 1206. Jurisdiction of Collector Over Importation of Articles
-Collector shall:
…cause all articles entering the jurisdiction of his district and destined for importation through his
port to be entered at the custom house
…cause all articles to be appraised and classified
…assess and collect duties, taxes and other charges theron
…hold possession of all imported articles upon which duties, taxes and other charges have not
been paid or secured
Section 1207. Jurisdiction of Collector Over Articles of Prohibited Importation
-duty of collector to exercise such jurisdiction in respect thereto as will prevent importation or
otherwise secure compliance with all legal requirements
JAO V CA
FACTS:
The Office of the Director, Enforcement and Security Services (ESS),
Bureau of Customs, received information regarding the presence of
REMEDIES UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE
untaxed vehicles and parts in the premises owned by Pat Hao
located along Quirino Avenue, Paranaque and Honduras St., Makati.
After conducting a surveillance of the two places, respondent
Major Jaime Maglipon, Chief of Operations and Intelligence of the
ESS, recommended the issuance of warrants of seizure and
detention. District Collector of Customs Titus Villanueva issued
the warrants of seizure and detention.
Maglipon coordinated with the local police to assist in the execution
of the respective warrants of seizure and detention.The team
searched the two premises. They were barred from entering the
place, but some members of the team were able to force
themselves inside and were able to inspect the premises
and noted that some articles were present which were not
included in the list contained in the warrant. Amended
warrants of seizure and detention were subsequently issued by
Villanueva.
Consequently customs personnel started hauling the articles
pursuant to the amended warrants.
Narciso Jao and Bernardo Empeynado filed a case for Injunction and
Damageswith prayer for Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction before RTC Makati Branch 56 on August 27, 1990 against
respondents. On the same date, the trial court issued a Temporary
Restraining Order.
Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss on the ground that RTC has
no jurisdiction over the subject matter, claiming that it was the
Bureau of Customs that had exclusive jurisdiction over it. RTC
denied motion to dismiss.
Respondents filed MFR . MFR was denied.
CA set aside the questioned orders of the trial court and enjoined it
from further proceeding with the Case. The appellate court also
dismissed the said civil case.
ISSUE:
WON the RTC has jurisdiction over cases questioning the validity of
seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Bureau of
Customs
HELD:
cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.m
endoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha
6
The RTC is devoid of any competence to pass upon the
validity or regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings
conducted by the Bureau of Customs and to enjoin or
otherwise interfere with these proceedings .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 Regional Trial Courts are precluded from assuming
cognizance over such matters even through petitions of
certiorari, prohibition or mandamus.
It is likewise well-settled that the provisions of the Tariff and
Customs Code and RA 1125 "An Act Creating the Court of Tax
Appeals," specify the proper fora and procedure for the ventilation
of any legal objections or issues raised concerning these
proceedings.
Actions of the Collector of Customs are appealable to the
Commissioner of Customs, whose decision, in turn, is
subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court
of Tax Appeals and from there to the Court of Appeals.
The rule that Regional Trial Courts have no review powers over such
proceedings is anchored upon the policy of placing no unnecessary
hindrance on the government's drive, not only to prevent
smuggling and other frauds upon Customs, but more importantly,
to render effective and efficient the collection of import and export
duties due the State, which enables the government to carry out
the functions it has been instituted to perform.
The illegality of a seizure by the Collector of Customs does not
deprive the Bureau of Customs of jurisdiction thereon.
The allegations of petitioners regarding the propriety of the seizure
should properly be ventilated before the Collector of Customs. We
have had occasion to declare:
The Collector of Customs when sitting in forfeiture proceedings
constitutes a tribunal expressly vested by law with jurisdiction to
hear and determine the subject matter of such proceedings without
any interference from the Court of First Instance. (Auyong Hian v.
Court of Tax Appeals, et al., 19 SCRA 10).
REMEDIES UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE
ENRILE vs VINUYA
NATURE
Certiorari and prohibition proceeding
FACTS
- The then Collector of Customs of the Port of Manila issued a
warrant of seizure and detention against the Cadillac car involved
in this case, the owner-claimant being a certain Rodolfo Ce za, as
the taxes and duties had not been paid.l h /CITE> The warr
- It was moreover shown in the petition that the owner, Rodolfo Ce
za, had sold such car to one Francisco Dee from whom respondent
Vinuya acquired the same.
- Vinuya filed a complaint for replevin in the sala of respondent
Judge on the ground of alleged illegality of the seizure which, in the
opinion of respondents, did not confer jurisdiction on the Collector
of Customs.
- Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that forfeiture
proceedings had already been instituted before the Collector of
Customs who has the sole jurisdiction to determine questions
affecting the disposition of property under seizure as well as the
absence of a cause of action. This was denied for lack of merit.
Thus this petition.
ISSUE
WON the court of first instance is vested with jurisdiction to
entertain a complaint for replevin for the recovery of a Cadillac car,
subject of a seizure and forfeiture proceeding in the Bureau of
Customs
HELD
NO. The prevailing doctrine is that the exclusive jurisdiction in
seizure and forfeiture cases vested in the Collector of Customs
precludes a court of first instance from assuming cognizance over
such a matter. This has been so, as noted, since Pacis v. Averia.
Reasoning
a. The existence of the power and the regularity of the proceeding
taken under it are distinct from each other. The governmental
agency concerned, the Bureau of Customs, is vested with exclusive
authority. Even if it be assumed that in the exercise of such
exclusive competence a taint of illegality may be correctly imputed,
cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.m
endoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha
7
the most that can be said is that under certain circumstances the
grave abuse of discretion conferred may oust it of such jurisdiction.
It does not mean however that correspondingly a court of first
instance is vested with competence when clearly in the light of the
above decisions the law has not seen fit to do so.l h
/CIJFOAJOJbefore th
b. "the Court of First Instance should yield to the jurisdiction of the
Collector of Customs. The jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs is
provided for in Republic Act 1937 which took effect on July 1, 1957,
much later than the Judiciary Act of 1948. It is axiomatic that a later
law prevails over a prior statute.
c. Moreover, on grounds of public policy, it is more reasonable to
conclude that the legislators intended to divest the Court of First
Instance of the prerogative to replevin a property which is a subject
of a seizure and forfeiture proceedings for violation of the Tariff and
Customs Code. Otherwise, actions for forfeiture of property for
violation of Customs laws could easily be undermined by the simple
devise of replevin."
d. Section 2303 of the Tariff and Customs Code requires the
Collector of Customs to give to the owner of the property sought to
be forfeited written notice of the seizure and to give him the
opportunity to be heard in his defense. This provision clearly
indicates the intention of the law to confine in the Bureau of
Customs the determination of all questions affecting the disposal of
property proceeded against in a seizure and forfeiture case. The
judicial recourse of the property owner is not in the Court of First
Instance but in the Court of Tax Appeals, and only after exhausting
administrative remedies in the Bureau of Customs."
e Collector of Customs is not final. An appeal lies to the
DISPOSITION
The writ of certiorari prayed for is granted, respondent Judge being
clearly without jurisdiction.
ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. V RICAFORT ET AL
FACTS
-Section 1, RA No. 8506 provides that it shall be unlawful for any
person to import, cause the importation of, register, cause the
registration of, use or operate right-hand drive vehicles
REMEDIES UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE
-Noel Tabuelog et al are duly-licensed importers of vehicles, who,
between April and May 1998, imported 72 secondhand right-hand
drive buses
-When the shipment arrived at the Port of Manila, the District
Collector of Customs impounded the vehicles and ordered them
stored at the warehouse of the Asian Terminals, Inc. (ATI)
-Conformably with Section 2607 of the Tariff and Customs Code, the
District Collector of Customs issued Warrants of Distraint against
the shipment and set the sale at public auction
-On October 28, 1998, the Secretary of Justice rendered an opinion
stating that shipments of right hand wheel vehicles loaded and
exported at the port of origin before February 22, 1998 were not
covered by RA No. 8506 unless the same were loaded and imported
after said date.
-On November 11, 1998, the importers, filed a complaint with the
RTC of Parañaque City, against the Secretary of Finance, Customs
Commissioner, et al for replevin
-The RTC granted the application for a writ of replevin on a bond of
P12,000,000.00.
-The Chief of Customs Police and four (4) customs policemen
prevented the Sheriff and the policemen assisting him from taking
custody of the vehicles, claiming that the District Collector of
Customs had jurisdiction over the vehicles.
-On motion of the plaintiffs, the court issued an order directing the
PNP Director to assist the Sheriff in implementing the writ it issued
-The District Collector of Customs agreed to transfer the custody of
the vehicles to the RTC, on the condition that the required taxes,
dues, and other charges be paid.
-On November 27, 1998, the defendants, through the OSG, filed a
motion seeking the reconsideration of the RTC Order on the ground
that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the vehicles subject of seizure
and detention before the Bureau of Customs. The ATI filed a motion
for the court to allow the vehicles to remain in its warehouse.
-On December 1, 1998, the ATI filed a Third-Party Claim over the
shipment, alleging that it had a lien over the vehicles for
accumulated and unpaid storage and arrastre charges, and
wharfage dues
-Before the court could resolve the motions, plaintiffs filed a
"Motion/Notice to Dismiss/Withdraw Complaint" against the
defendants on the ground that they had agreed to the
implementation of the writ of replevin
cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.m
endoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha
8
-ATI filed a Motion for Intervention and for Admission of its
Complaint-in-Intervention, alleging that it had a lien on the vehicles
for accumulated storage and arrastre charges and wharfage dues.
-On April 27, 1999, the court issued an Order dismissing the
complaint
-The OSG filed a motion for reconsideration. For its part, ATI filed a
motion for clarification of the order, and also pleaded for the court
to admit its Complaint-in-Intervention
-On September 23, 1999, the RTC issued its Order dismissing the
Complaint-in-Intervention
-ATI filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied on
July 31, 2000.
-ATI filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA
-On November 30, 2004, the CA rendered judgment dismissing the
petition for lack of merit. The appellate court ruled that the RTC had
no jurisdiction over the complaint filed by respondents, since the
Collector of Customs sitting in seizure and forfeiture proceedings
had the exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions
relating on the seizure and forfeiture of dutiable goods. Since the
RTC had no jurisdiction over the main case, it was also bereft of
authority to hear the third-party claim or the complaint-in-
intervention filed by ATI.
-ATI filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied, hence,
this petition
ISSUE
WON the lower courts erred in dismissing ATI's petition
HELD
No.
-Section 602 of the TCC provides that the Bureau of Customs shall
exercise exclusive jurisdiction over seized and forfeited cars. It is
tasked to enforce tariff, and supervise and control customs law and
all other laws, rules and regulations relating to the tariff and
customs administration; and to supervise and control all import and
export cargoes, loaded or stored in piers, terminal facilities,
including container yards and freight stations, for the protection of
government revenues. Under Section 2301 of the TCC, the Collector
of Customs is empowered to make a seizure of cargoes and issue a
receipt for the detention thereof
-Section 2530. Property Subject of Forfeiture Under Tariff and
Customs Laws. Any vehicle, vessel or aircraft, cargo, article and
REMEDIES UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE
objects shall, under the following conditions be subject to forfeiture:
(f) Any article the importation or exportation of which is effected or
attempted contrary to law, or any article of prohibited importation
or exportation, and all other articles which, in the opinion of the
Collector, have been used, are or were entered to be used as
instruments in the importation or exportation of the former.
-In Jao v. Court of Appeals, it was held that the Regional Trial Courts
are devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity or
regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the
Bureau of Customs and to enjoin or otherwise interfere with these
proceedings. It is the Collector of Customs, sitting in seizure and
forfeiture proceedings, who has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and
determine all questions touching on the seizure and forfeiture of
dutiable goods. Actions of the Collector of Customs are appealable
to the Commissioner of Customs, whose decision, in turn, is subject
to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals
and from there to the Court of Appeals.
-The rule that Regional Trial Courts have no review powers over
such proceedings is anchored upon the policy of placing no
unnecessary hindrance on the governments drive, not only to
prevent smuggling and other frauds upon Customs, but more
importantly, to render effective and efficient the collection of
import and export duties due the State, which enables the
government to carry out the functions it has been instituted to
perform.
-The RTC had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition for
replevin by respondents herein, issue the writ of replevin and order
its enforcement. The RTC should have dismissed the petition for
replevin at the outset.
-While it is true that the District Collector of Customs allowed the
release of the vehicles and the transfer thereof to the custody of
the RTC upon the payment by the private respondents of the
required taxes, duties and charges, he did not thereby lose
jurisdiction over the vehicles; neither did it vest jurisdiction on the
RTC to take cognizance of and assume jurisdiction over the petition
for replevin.
-The RTC cannot be faulted for dismissing petitioners complaint-in-
intervention. Considering that it had no jurisdiction over
respondents action and over the shipment subject of the complaint,
all proceedings before it would be void. The RTC had no jurisdiction
to take cognizance of the complaint-in-intervention and act thereon
except to dismiss the same. Moreover, considering that
cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.m
endoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha
9
intervention is merely ancillary and supplemental to the existing
litigation and never an independent action, the dismissal of the
principal action necessarily results in the dismissal of the
complaint-in-intervention. Likewise, a court which has no
jurisdiction over the principal action has no jurisdiction over a
complaint-in-intervention.
Section 44(c) of the Judiciary Act of 1948 lodges in the Court of
First Instance original jurisdiction in all cases in which the value of
the property in controversy amounts to more than ten thousand
pesos. This original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, when
exercised in an action for recovery of personal property which is a
subject of a forfeiture proceeding in the Bureau of Customs, tends
to encroach upon, and to render futile, the jurisdiction of the
Collector of Customs in seizure and forfeiture proceedings. This is
precisely what took place in this case.l h
BOAC V PEOPLE
NATURE
Appeal by certiorari under Rule 45
FACTS
- Raul Basilio Boac, Ramon Betuin Golong, Cesar Fantone Beltran,
Roger Alcantara Basadre, and Benjamin Castaneda Alfonso are
members of the PNP-CIDG.
- They were charged with violation of Sec. 2203 in relation to Sec.
3612 of the Tariff and Customs Code in that without lawful authority
or delegation from the Collector of Customs, they flagged down,
searched and seized three (3) container vans consigned to Japan
Trak surplus (Kakiage Surplus).
- Atty. Lourdes V. Mangaoang, then Customs District Collector of
Cagayan de Oro City, testified that the CIDG operatives (herein
petitioners) did not have a written authority from the Commissioner
of Customs or the District Collector. According to her, Golong
claimed that they had clear orders from Boac to open and search
the vans. She instructed her personnel to open the vans only to
show that there was nothing illegal in their contents. She prepared
a letter of protest addressed to Boac but it was ignored; hence, she
filed the instant case.
REMEDIES UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE
- For the defense, Boac testified that on July 27, 2004, he was in
Manila on leave. Beltran allegedly informed him that three
container vans with contrabands were released by the BOC; thus,
Boac instructed Golong and his team to flag down the subject
vans. After the inspection of the vans and without finding any
contraband, Boac directed Golong to leave the premises.
- The Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioners. The anti-graft court
ruled that petitioners belong to the category of officers in Sec.
2203(d); thus, they needed a written authority from the
Commissioner of Customs or District Collector in order to conduct
searches, seizures and arrests. In this case, the court said, the
prosecution established the lack of said written authority; even
Beltran and Golong admitted that they did not have any
authorization to search the vans.
- Petitioners assert that they did not conduct any search, seizure, or
arrest; hence, there was no violation of the Tariff and Customs
Code. During the search conducted in the consignee’s warehouse
on July 28, 2004, the employees of the owner of the shipment
unloaded the goods under BOC personnel supervision. Petitioners
allege that they only witnessed the search; they did not make any
seizures or arrests. After searching the first van and half of the
second van without any contraband being found, Customs Police
Yamit and Godoy decided to stop the search despite the request of
petitioners to continue. Since the Customs Police were already
leaving the area, Boac instructed his team to leave the vicinity.
- Petitioners further claim that the police’s authority to stop, search,
and effect seizure and arrest, if necessary, is no longer exclusively
vested on the Collector of Customs. Regular PNP members are
generally empowered by law to effect arrests in accordance with
Republic Act No. (RA) 6975.
- Petitioners contend that they were investigating a possible
connivance of smugglers with some corrupt customs personnel.
They maintained that their act of flagging down the container vans
was not connected with the enforcement of the tariff and customs
laws, smuggling being a form of economic sabotage which is within
the powers of the PNP-CIDG to monitor and investigate. Thus,
according to them, no prior authority from the Collector of Customs
is required in performing their duties as police officers. Besides,
they said they immediately coordinated with the Customs Police for
the latter to conduct the actual search of the container vans;
hence, there was no violation of Sec. 2203.
cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.m
endoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha
10
ISSUE
WON petitioners are guilty of the crime charged
HELD
NO
Reasoning
- Petitioners should be acquitted of the charge. The prosecution
has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. In this case, it is clear that petitioners neither
searched the container vans nor effected seizure and arrest.
- It should be noted that the container vans were brought to the
consignee’s warehouse and not to the CIDG headquarters. On July
28, 2004, the container vans were searched but not by petitioners.
The search was actually conducted by Customs Police Yamit and
Godoy on July 28, 2004. The Customs Police held the keys of the
vans. Furthermore, the vans were opened without the presence of
the PNP-CIDG’s team leader, Inspector Golong. The search was
under the direction of the Customs Police because when the
Customs Police decided to stop the search, petitioners acceded and
left the premises.
- The foregoing testimony, which Golong corroborated, was not
disputed by the prosecution. It is thus very clear that the search
was not done by petitioners but by the Customs Police. Petitioners
did not seize anything nor arrested anybody. They merely observed
the search which they requested to be undertaken to check for
contrabands. Notably, the consignee did not file any complaint
against petitioners.
- The information charged petitioners for illegally flagging down,
searching, and seizing the three container vans on July 27, 2004.
Petitioners, however, could not also be held liable for these acts. It
is a fact that no search and seizure of the vans was done on the
night of July 27, 2004. The act of flagging down the vehicles is not
among those proscribed by Sec. 2203 of the Tariff and Customs
Code. Mere flagging down of the container vans is not punishable
under the said law.
- As regards the second issue, there is no conflict between the
aforequoted provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code and RA
6975, as amended. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner of
Customs is clearly with regard to customs duties. Should the PNP
suspect anything, it should coordinate with the BOC and obtain the
written authority from the Collector of Customs in order to conduct
searches, seizures, or arrests.
REMEDIES UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE
Disposition Decision reversed and set aside.
II. REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO THE TAXPAYER
Sec. 2308. Protest and Payment upon Protest in Civil Matters. — When a ruling or decision
of the Collector is made whereby liability for duties, fees, or other money charge is determined,
except the fixing of fines in seizure cases, the party adversely affected may protest such ruling
or decision by presenting to the Collector at the time when payment of the amount claimed to be
due the Government is made, or within thirty days thereafter, a written protest setting forth his
objections to the ruling or decision in question, together with the reasons therefor. No protest
shall be considered unless payment of the amount due after final liquidation has first been
made.
Sec. 2309. Protest Exclusive Remedy in Protestable Case. — In all cases subject to protest,
the interested party who desires to have the action of the Collector reviewed, shall make a
protest, otherwise, the action of the Collector shall be final and conclusive against him, except
as to matters correctible for manifest error in the manner prescribed in section one thousand
seven hundred and seven hereof.
Sec. 2310. Form and Scope of Protest. — Every protest shall be filed in accordance with the
prescribed rules and regulations promulgated under this section and shall point out the particular
decision or ruling of the Collector to which exception is taken or objection made, and shall
indicate with reasonable precision the particular ground or grounds upon which the protesting
party bases his claim for relief.
The scope of a protest shall be limited to the subject matter of a single adjustment or other
independent transaction; but any number of issue may be raised in a protest with reference to
the particular item or items constituting the subject matter of the protest.
"Single adjustment", as hereinabove used, refers to the entire content of one liquidation,
including all duties, fees, surcharges or fines incident thereto. chan robles virtual law library
Sec. 2311. Samples to be Furnished by Protesting Parties. — If the nature of the articles
permit, importers filing protests involving questions of fact must, upon demand, supply the
Collector with samples of the articles which are the subject matter of the protests. Such samples
shall be verified by the custom official who made the classification against which the protest are
filed.
Sec. 2312. Decision or Action by Collector in Protest and Seizure Cases. — When a protest
in proper form is presented in a case where protest in required, the Collector shall reexamine the
matter thus presented, and if the protest is sustained, in whole or in part, he shall enter the
appropriate order, the entry reliquidated if necessary.
In seizure cases, the Collector, after a hearing, shall in writing make a declaration of forfeiture or
fix the amount of the fine or take such other action as may be proper.
CAO No. 3-2002: Amendment of CMO 27-99 on the Procedure in Protest Cases Against
the Determination of Customs Value and Tariff Classification of Imported Goods Under
the WTO Valuation Regime
I. Objective: provide clear and transparent procedures for the resolution of formal protest cases
arising from valuation and classification issues resolved by the Valuation and Classification
Review Committee (VCRC) pursuant to CMO on New Cargo Clearance Procedure
cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.m
endoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha
11
II. Procedural Flow
Collector of Customs
1. upon final determination of the Customs Value and/or the tariff classification by the VCRC,
importer adversely affected may file a formal protest with the OFFICE OF THE COLLECTOR
OF CUSTOMS through the LAW DIVISION of the port concerned or its equivalent unit in order
to dispute the assessment
…at the time when payment of the amount claimed to be due the government is made
Or
…within 15 days thereafter
2. importer shall
… state: reasons for protest
…pay docket fees – rate fixed by CAO No. 1-96A
3. Collector form panel of experts to hear the case: hearing officer from law division + COO V
and COO III from assessment unit
4. Collector ensure that those involved in the initial assessment shall not be chosen as members
of the expert’s panel
5. panel shall hear all parties: authorized to issue necessary notice of hearings, subpoenas and
other interlocutory orders, receive evidence
6. panel terminate proceedings, recommend decision to the Collector of Customs for approval
within 30 d from the 1st hearing
7. protest cannot be resolved for meritorious reason within 30d: panel shall request additional
time not exceeding 30d within which to resolve case
8. Collector render FINAL decision within 15 days from receipt of recommended decision + shall
notify importer in writing of deci
9. Collector renders deci ADVERSE TO GOVERNMENT: deci + entire records of the case =
automatically elevated to Commissioner for AUTOMATIC REVIEW within 5 days from
promulgation
10. If importer not satisfied with Collector’s deci (ADVERSE TO IMPORTER): notice of appeal
with collector
…within 15 days after notification in writing by Collector
…with a copy of the notice furnished to the Commissioner of Customs
11. Collector shall immediately transfer all the records of the protest + assailed deci to
Commissioner
…Commissioner shall approve/modify/reverse the action or deci of Collector
…take steps and make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to his deci
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
12. Appeal to Commissioner of Customs: perfected upon
a. filing of notice of appeals
b. payment of appeal docket fee in accordance with prescribed rates
c. Memorandum of appeal at option of appellant (within 15 days from receipt of notice of deci)
13. Appeal (regular/ automatic): Deliberated on by a permanent board of 3 created by
Commissioner
…board: chaired by lawyer from the appellate division,
Mems: legal service and 2 valuation experts from import and assessment service
14. board shall recommend deci of Commissioner through proper channels
15. Commissioner shall render a decision w/n 30 d from receipt of the records of the case from
the Collector
…shall noticy the appellant/aggrieved party in writing
16. w/n 30d from receipt of the record of the case: no decision by Commissioner is rendered =
deemed that Commissioner upheld the Collector’s decision
…if deci adverse to gov’t: case shall likewise be elevated to SoF for automatic review
17. Commissioner decides in favor of Gov’t + no appeal perfected w/n reglementary period
w/CTA = deci of Commissioner shall become final and executory
REMEDIES UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE
SECRETARY OF FINANCE
18. Commissioner renders a decision adverse to gov’t: elevated to SoF for automatic review +
records of proceedings forwarded to SoF w/n 5d from promulgation of decision
19.w/n 30d from receipt of the record of the case by SoF no deci rendered: deci under review
FINAL AND EXECUTORY
20. DECI OF SOF: final and executory if no appeal to CTA
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
21. Importer not satisfied with Commissioner of Customs/SoF deci: file an appeal with CTA
w/n30d from receipt of a notice of such deci
2. SEIZURE/FORFEITURE CASES
SEC. 2530. Property Subject to Forfeiture Under Tariff and Customs Laws. - Any vehicle,
vessel or aircraft, cargo, article and other objects shall, under the following conditions be
subjected to forfeiture:
a. Any vehicle, vessel or aircraft, including cargo, which shall be used unlawfully in the
importation or exportation of articles or in conveying and/or transporting contraband or smuggled
articles in commercial quantities into or from any Philippine port or place. The mere carrying or
holding on board of contraband or smuggled articles in commercial quantities shall subject such
vessel, vehicle, aircraft, or any other craft to forfeiture: Provided, That the vessel, or aircraft or
any other craft is not used as duly authorized common carrier and as such a carrier it is not
chartered or leased;
b. Any vessel engaging in the coastwise which shall have on board any article of foreign growth,
produce, or manufacture in excess of the amount necessary for sea stores, without such article
having been properly entered or legally imported;
c. Any vessel or aircraft into which shall be transferred cargo unladen contrary to law prior to the
arrival of the importing vessel or aircraft at her port of destination;
d. Any part of the cargo, stores or supplies of a vessel or aircraft arriving from a foreign port
which is unladen before arrival at the vessel's or aircraft's port of destination and without
authority from the customs officials; but such cargo, ship or aircraft stores and supplies shall not
be forfeited if such unlading was due to accident, stress of weather or other necessity and is
subsequently approved by the Collector;
e. Any article which is fraudulently concealed in or removed contrary to law from any public or
private warehouse, container yard or container freight station under customs supervision;
f. Any article the importation or exportation of which is effected or attempted contrary to law, or
any article of prohibited importation or exportation, and all other articles which, in the opinion of
the Collector, have been used, are or were entered to be used as instruments in the importation
or the exportation of the former;
g. Unmanifested article found on any vessel or aircraft if manifest therefore is required;
h. Sea stores or aircraft stores adjudged by the Collector to be excessive, when the duties
assessed by the Collector thereon are not paid or secured forthwith upon assessment of the
same,
i. Any package of imported article which is found by the examining official to contain any article
not specified in the invoice or entry, including all other packages purportedly containing imported
articles similar to those declared in the invoice or entry to be. the contents of the misdeclared
package; Provided, That the Collector is of the opinion that the misdeclaration was contrary to
law;
j. Boxes, cases, trunks, envelopes and other containers of whatever character used as
receptacle or as device to conceal article which is itself subject to forfeiture under the tariff and
customs laws or which is so designed as to conceal the character of such articles;
k. Any conveyance actually being used for the transport of articles subject to forfeiture under the
tariff and customs laws, with its equipage or trappings, and any vehicle similarly used, together
with its equipage and appurtenances including the beast steam or other motive power drawing
or propelling the same. The mere conveyance of contraband or smuggled articles by such beast
cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.m
endoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha
12
or vehicle shall be sufficient cause for the outright seizure and confiscation of such beast or
vehicle but the forfeiture shall not be effected if it is established that the owner of the means of
conveyance used as aforesaid, is engaged as common carrier and not chartered or leased, or
his agent in charge thereof at the time, has no knowledge of the unlawful act;
1. Any article sought to be imported or exported (1) Without going through a customhouse,
whether the act was consummated, frustrated or attempted; (2) By failure to mention to a
customs official, articles found in the baggage of a person arriving from abroad; (3) On the
strength of a false declaration or affidavit executed by the owner, importer, exporter or consignee
concerning the importation of such article; (4) On the strength of a false invoice or other
document executed by the owner, importer, exporter or consignee concerning the importation or
exportation of such article; and (5) Through any other practice or device contrary to law by
means of which such articles was entered through a customhouse to the prejudice of the
government.
SEC. 2531. Properties Not Subject to Forfeiture in the Absence of Prima Facie Evidence. –
The forfeiture of the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft shall hot be effected if it is established that the
owner thereof or his agent in charge of the means of conveyance used as aforesaid has no
knowledge of or participation in the unlawful act: Provided, however, That a prima facie
presumption shall exist against the vessel, vehicle or aircraft under any of the following
circumstances:
1. If the conveyance has been used for smuggling at least twice before;
2. If the owner is not in the business for which the conveyance is generally used; and
3. If the owner is not financially in a position to own such conveyance.
SEC. 2532. Conditions Affecting Forfeiture of Article. - As regards imported or exported
article or articles whereof the importation or exportation is merely attempted, the forfeiture shall
be effected only when and while the article is in the custody or within the jurisdiction of the
customs authorities or in the hands or subject to the control of the importer, exporter, original
owner, consignee, agent of other person effecting the importation, entry or exportation in
question, or in the hands or subject to the control of some persons who shall receive, conceal,
buy, sell or transport the same or aid in any such acts, with knowledge that the article was
imported, or was the subject of an attempt at importation or exportation, contrary to law.
SEC. 2533. Enforcement of Lien, Administrative Fines, and Forfeitures. - Administrative
fines and forfeitures shall be enforced by the seizure of the vehicle, vessel or aircraft or other
property subject to the fine or forfeiture and by subsequent proceedings in conformity with the
provisions of Parts 2 and 3, Title VI, Book 11, of this Code. For the purpose of enforcing the lien
for customs duties, fees and other charges on any seized or confiscated article in the custody of
the Bureau of Internal Revenue., the Bureau of Internal Revenue is hereby authorized to impose
and enforce the said lien.
SEC. 2534. Seizure of Vessel or Aircraft for Delinquency of Owner or Officer. - When the
owner, .agent, master, pilot in command or other responsible officer of any vessel or aircraft
becomes liable to be fined under the tariff and customs laws on account of a delinquency in the
discharge of a duty imposed upon him with reference to the said vessel or aircraft, the vessel or
aircraft itself may be seized and subjected in an administrative proceeding for the satisfaction of
the fine for which such person would have been liable. SEC. 2535. Burden of Proof in Seizure
and/or Forfeiture. - In all proceedings taken for the seizure and/or forfeiture of any vessel,
vehicle, aircraft, beast or articles under the provisions of the tariff and customs laws, the burden
of proof shall lie upon the claimant: Provided, That probable cause shall be first shown for the
institution of such proceedings and that seizure and/or forfeiture was made under the
circumstances and in the manner described in the preceding sections of this Code.
SEC. 2536. Seizure of Other Articles. - The Commissioner of Customs and Collector of
Customs any other customs officer, with the prior authorization in writing by the Commissioner,
may demand evidence of payment of duties and taxes on foreign articles openly offered for sale
or kept in storage, and if no such evidence can be produced, such articles may be seized and
subjected to forfeiture proceedings: , however, That during such proceedings the person or entity
REMEDIES UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE
for whom such articles have been shall be given the opportunity to prove or show the source of
such articles and the payment of duties and taxes thereon.
CAO No. 9-93: Rules and Regulations Governing the Issuance of Warrants
of Seizure and Detention, the Conduct of Seizure Proceedings and
Procedure in Appeals to the Commissioner of Customs and to the Secretary
of Finance…
Title I
Title and Construction
Title II
General Provisions
[Sec3] Collector of Customs upon making any seizure shall issue a warrant for
the detention of the property
[Sec4] Owner/importer desires to secure the release of the property under seizure
for legitimate use, Collector of Customs shall surrender it upon filling of a sufficient
cash bond in an amount to be fixed by the Collector of Customs, subject to the
following conditions:
a. amount of cash bond shall not in any case be less than the appraised value of the
article plus fine, expenses and costs that may be adjudged in the case.
APPRAISED VALUE: dutiable value of article + duties, taxes, and other customs
charges
b. no prima facie evidence of fraud attendant to importation
c. not prohibited importation
d. release under cash bond approved by the Commissioner
[Sec5] release of property under cash bond: SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE OWNER OR
IMPORTER of the goods from CRIMINAL LIABILITY arising from the
importation/exportation of the shipment
Title III
Grounds for the issuance of warrant of seizure and detention proceedings before
hearing officers
[Sec6] probable cause that articles were imported/exported contrary to TCC: the
Collector of Customs shall issue a Warrant of Seizure and Detention in Customs
[Sec7] Formal Hearing: uncontroverted facts shall be stipulated on and issues to be
heard shall be agreed upon in order to abbreviate the proceedings
…determine WON there is a violation of law
…District Collector of Customs shall render deci
Title IV
Review by Commissioner
[Sec8] Appeal: person/party aggrieved by the decision/action of Collector in any
case of SEIZURE
…may file a written notice to Collector of Customs
…w/n 15d after receipt of the notice in writing of action/decision of the Collector of
Customs
…copy furnished with Commissioner of Customs of intention to appeal
…upon perfection of appeal: Collector shall immediately transmit all the records of
the proceedings to Commissioner
…Appeal filed beyond 15d: deemed dismissed
…Commissioner shall approve/modify/reverse the Collector of Customs deci/action +
take such steps and make appropriate orders
[Sec9] Automatic Review by the Commissioner on Action or Decision of the Collector
of Customs adverse to government
cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.m
endoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha
13
…records of the case: elevated w/n 5 days from promulgation of deci of collector of
customs
…from receipt of the records of the case: Commissioner render deci on automatic
review w/n 30d
…deci of Commissioner REVERSING THE ADVERSE DECI of Collector, on automatic
review, shall be FINAL AND EXECUTORY
[Sec10] Commissioner AFFIRMS Adverse decision of Collector: records of the
proceedings shall be elevated to SoF w/n 5d from promulgation of the deci by
Commissioner
…Commissioner fails to render a deci on automatic review w/n 30d from receipt of
records: deemed automatically appealed to SoF; records of the proceedings shall be
elevated by Commissioner to the SoF w/n 5d after the lapse of 30d
…adverse deci of Collector AFFRIMED by SoF: affirmed deci final and executory
…value of the imported article under seizure: P5k+: adverse deci of Collector
deemed automatically appealed to SoF
…w/n 30d from receipt of the records of the proceedings by SoF, no deci is rendered
by him: Commissioner/Collector’s deci under appeal shall be final and executory
[Sec11] deci of Collector on the merits which fully or partially releases the shipment
under seizure = adverse decision subject to automatic review
[Sec12] seizure proceeding: release of imported articles shall not be allowed unless
and until a decision of the Collector has been affirmed in writing by the
commissioner
…
Pacis v. Pamaran
Facts
Pacis is the Acting Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila. The
case is prohibition proceeding against Assistant City Fiscal of
Manila, Manuel R. Pamaran.
Respondent Ricardo Santos is the owner of a Mercury automobile,
model 1957. It was brought into this country without the payment
of customs duty and taxes, its owner Donald James Hatch being
tax-exempt. It was from him that respondent Santos acquired said
car.
He paid P311.00 for customs duty and taxes. Land Transportation
Commission reported that such automobile was a "hot car." By
virtue thereof, petitioner Pacis, ascertained that although the
amount of P311.00 was already paid for customs duty, the amount
collectible on said car should be P2,500.00, more or less. Pacis
instituted seizure proceedings and issued a warrant of seizure and
detention. Ricardo Santos filed a criminal complaint for usurpation
of judicial functions with the City Fiscal of Manila handled by
Pamaran.
Issue
WON the Collector of Customs has the authority to issue the
warrant of seizure
REMEDIES UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE
Held
Yes, as Acting Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila, he had
the requisite authority for the issuance of the contested warrant of
seizure and detention for the automobile owned by respondent
Ricardo Santos. It is to be admitted that the constitutional right to
be free from unreasonable search and seizure must not be eroded
or emasculated. The right to privacy so highly valued in civilized
society must not be diluted. Only upon compliance then with the
proper requisites mandated by law should one's possessions be
subject to seizure. That much is clear. Under the 1935 Constitution
the intervention of a judge was well-nigh indispensable. So it was
under the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Act of
1916. Even then, however, as shown by the leading case of Uy
Kheytin v. Villareal, a 1920 decision, it was the accepted principle
following the landmark case of Boyd v. United States that the
seizure of goods concealed to avoid the duties on them is
not embraced within the prohibition of this constitutional
guarantee. More to the point. In a recent decision of this Court,
Papa v. Mago, where the seizure of alleged smuggled goods was
effected by a police officer without a search warrant, this Court,
through Justice Zaldivar, stated: "Petitioner Martin Alagao and his
companion policemen had authority to effect the seizure without
any search warrant issued by a component court. The Tariff and
Customs Code does not require said warrant in the instant case.
The Code authorizes persons having police authority under
Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass
through or search any land, inclosure, warehouse, store or
building, not being a dwelling house; and also to inspect,
search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk,
package, box or envelope or any person on board, or stop
and search and examine any vehicle, beast or person
suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or
prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary
to law, without mentioning the need of a search warrant in
said cases. But in the search of a dwelling house, the Code
provides that said 'dwelling house may be entered and
searched only upon warrant issued by a judge or justice of
the peace . . . .' It is our considered view, therefore, that
except in the case of the search of a dwelling house,
persons exercising police authority under the customs law
cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.m
endoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha
14
may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in
the enforcement of customs laws."
The plenitude of the competence vested in customs officials is thus
undeniable. No such constitutional question then can possibly arise.
So much is implicit from the very language of Section 2205 of the
Tariff and Customs Code. It speaks for itself. It is not susceptible of
any misinterpretation. The power of petitioner is thus manifest. It
being undeniable then that the sole basis for an alleged criminal
act performed by him was the performance of a duty according to
law, there is not the slightest justification for respondent Assistant
City Fiscal to continue with the preliminary investigation after his
attention was duly called to the plain and explicit legal provision
that did not suffer at all from any constitutional infirmity. The
remedy of prohibition lies.
What was done by petitioner was strictly in accordance with settled
principles of law. No doubt need be entertained then as to the
validity of the issuance of the warrant of seizure and detention. His
liability for any alleged usurpation of judicial function is non-
existent. Such imputation was definitely unfounded. Even if
however the matter were less clear, the claim that the search and
seizure clause was in effect nullified is hardly impressed with merit.
Considering that what is involved is an alleged evasion of the
payment of customs duties.
Disposition
WHEREFORE, the writ of prohibition prayed for is granted and the
successor of respondent Manuel R. Pamaran, now a criminal circuit
court judge, or any one in the City Fiscal's Office of the City of
Manila to whom the complaint against petitioner for usurpation of
judicial functions arising out of the issuance of the warrant of
seizure and detention, subject-matter of this litigation, has been
assigned, is perpetually restrained from acting thereon except to
dismiss the same. No costs.
3. REVIEW OF PROTEST/SEIZURE CASES BY COMMISSIONER OF
CUSTOMS/SECRETARY OF FINANCE
A. REVIEW UPON REQUEST OF TAXPAYER
SEC. 2309. Protest Exclusive Remedy in Protestable, Case. - In all cases subject to pr
interested party who desires to have the action of the Collector reviewed, shall make a protest,
other action of the Collector shall be final and conclusive against him, except as to matters
collectible for error in the manner prescribed in section one thousand seven hundred and seven
hereof.
REMEDIES UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE
SEC. 2310. Form and Scope of Protest. - Every protest shall be filed in accordance prescribed
rules and regulations promulgated under this section and shall point out the particular de ruling,
of the Collector to which exception is taken or objection made, and shall indicate with re
precision the particular ground or grounds upon which the protesting party bases his claim for
relief. The scope of a protest shall be limited to the subject matter of a single adjustment
independent transaction, but any number of issue may be raised in a protest with reference to
the particular item or items constituting the subject matter of the protest.
SEC. 2311. Samples to be Furnished by Protesting Parties. - If the nature of the articles
permit, importers filing protests involving questions of fact must, upon demand, supply the
Collector with samples of the articles which are the subject matter of the protest. Such samples
shall be verified by the customs official who made the classification against which the protest are
filed.
SEC. 2312. Decision or Action of Collector in Protest and Seizure Cases. - When a protest
in proper form is presented in a case where protest is required, the Collector shall issue an order
for hearing within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the protest and hear the matter thus
presented. Upon the termination of the hearing, the Collector shall render a decision within thirty
(30) days, and if the protest is sustained, in whole or in part, he shall make the appropriate
order, the entry reliquidated necessary. In seizure cases, the Collector, after a hearing shall in
writing make a declaration of forfeiture amount of the fine or take such other action as may be
proper.
SEC. 2313. Review of Commissioner. - The person aggrieved by the decision or Collector in
any matter presented upon protest or by his action in any case of seizure may, within days after
notification on writing by the Collector of his actions or decisions, file a written notice to the
Collector with a copy furnished to the Commissioner of his intention to appeal the action or
decision of the Collector to the Commissioner. Thereupon the Collector shall forthwith transmit
all the recc, proceedings to the Commissioner, who shall approve, modify or reverse the action
or decision of t~~ and take such steps and make such orders as may be necessary to give effect
to his decision: Provided, That when an appeal is filed beyond the period herein prescribed, the
same shag be deemed dismissed. If in any seizure proceedings, the Collector renders a
decision adverse to the Government, such decision shall be automatically reviewed by the
Commissioner and the records of the case elevated (5) days from the promulgation of the
decision of the Collector. The Commissioner shall render a decision on the automatic appeal
within thirty (30) days from receipts of the records of the case. If the Collector'~ is reversed by
the Commissioner, the decision of the Commissioner shall be final and executory: K the
Collector's decision is affirmed, or if within thirty (30) days from receipt of the record of the ca~
Commissioner no decision is rendered or the decision involves imported articles whose
published value is five million pesos (P 5,000,000.00) or more, such decision shall be deemed
automatically appealed to the Secretary of Finance and the records of the proceedings shall be
elevated within five (5) days promulgation of the decision of the Commissioner or of the
Collector under appeal, as the case may be, is affirmed by the Secretary of Finance, or within
thirty (30) days from receipt of the proceedings by the Secretary of Finance, no decision is
rendered, the decision of the Secretary of Finance, or of the Commissioner, or of the Collector
under appeal, as the case may be, shall become final and executory.
In any seizure proceeding, the release of imported articles shall not be allowed unless apd until
a decision of the Collector has been confirmed in writing by the Commissioner of Customs (R.A.
7651, June 04, 1993).
B. AUTOMATIC REVIEW BY THE COMMISSIONER AND THE SECRETARY OF FINANCE
SEC. 2313. Review of Commissioner. Supra
SEC. 2315. Supervisory Authority of Commissioner and Secretary of Finance in Certain
Cases. - If any case involving the assessment of duties, the Collector renders a decision
adverse to the Government, such decision shall be automatically elevated to, and reviewed by,
cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.m
endoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha
15
the Commissioner; and if the Collector's decision would be affirmed by the Commissioner, such
decision shall he automatically elevated to, and be finally reviewed by, the Secretary of Finance:
Provided, however, That if within thirty (30) days from receipt of the record of the case by the
Commissioner or by. the Secretary of Finance, as the case may be, no decision is rendered by
either of them, the decision under review shall be final and executory: Provided, further, That any
party aggrieved by either the decision of the Commission or of the Secretary of Finance may
appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy of such decision.
For this purpose, Republic Act numbered eleven hundred and twenty -five is hereby amended
accordingly. Except as provided in the preceding paragraph, the supervisory authority of the
Secretary of Finance over the Bureau of Customs shall not extend to the administrative review
of the ruling or decision of the Commissioner in matters appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals.
B. Judicial Remedies
1. SUPERVISION AND CONTROL OVER JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
SEC. 2401. Supervision and Control Over Criminal and Civil Proceedings. - Civil and
criminal actions and proceedings instituted in behalf of the government under the authority of
this Code or other law enforced by the Bureau shall be brought in the name of the government
of the Philippines and shall be conducted by customs officers but no civil or criminal action for
the recovery of duties or the enforcement of any fine, penalty or forfeiture under this Code shall
be filed in court without the approval of the Commissioner." (R.A. 9135, April 27, 2001)
2. REVIEW BY CTA
SEC. 2402. Review by Court of Tax Appeals. - The party aggrieved by the ruling of the
Commissioner in any matter brought before him upon protest or by his action or ruling in any
case of seizure may appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals, in the manner and within the period
prescribed by law and regulations. Unless an appeal is made to the Court of Tax Appeals in the
manner and within the period prescribe by laws and regulations, the action or ruling of the
Commissioner shall be final and conclusive.
…
SEC. 2315. supra
RA 9282: AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS
(CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL
JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
CERTAIN SECTIONS OR REPUBLIC ACT NO. 1125, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Sec. 7. Jurisdiction. – The CTA shall exercise:
a. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided:
1. Decisions of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments,
refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relation thereto, or other
matters arising under the National Internal Revenue or other laws administered by the Bureau of
Internal Revenue;
2. Inaction by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue in cases involving disputed assessments,
refunds of internal revenue taxes, fees or other charges, penalties in relations thereto, or other
matters arising under the National Internal Revenue Code or other laws administered by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue, where the National Internal Revenue Code provides a specific
period of action, in which case the inaction shall be deemed a denial;
3. Decisions, orders or resolutions of the Regional Trial Courts in local tax cases originally
decided or resolved by them in the exercise of their original or appellate jurisdiction;
4. Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees
or other money charges, seizure, detention or release of property affected, fines, forfeitures or
REMEDIES UNDER THE TARIFF AND CUSTOMS CODE 16
other penalties in relation thereto, or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other laws III. CLAIM FOR REFUND
administered by the Bureau of Customs; SEC. 1707. Correction of Errors. - Refund of Excess Payments. - Manifest clerical errors made
5. Decisions of the Central Board of Assessment Appeals in the exercise of its appellate in an invoice or entry, errors in return of weight, measure and gauge, when duly certified to,
jurisdiction over cases involving the assessment and taxation of real property originally decided under penalties of falsification or perjury, by the surveyor or examining official (when there are
by the provincial or city board of assessment appeals; such officials at the port), and errors in the distribution of charges on invoices not involving any
6. Decisions of the Secretary of Finance on customs cases elevated to him automatically for question of law and certified to, under penalties of falsification or perjury, by the examining
review from decisions of the Commissioner of Customs which are adverse to the Government official, may be corrected in the computation of duties, if such errors be discovered before the
under Section 2315 of the Tariff and Customs Code; payments of duties, or if discovered within one year after the final liquidation, upon written
7. Decisions of the Secretary of Trade and Industry, in the case of nonagricultural product, request and notice of error from the importer, or upon statement of error certified by the
commodity or article, and the Secretary of Agriculture in the case of agricultural product, Collector. For the purpose of correcting errors specified in the next preceding paragraph the
commodity or article, involving dumping and countervailing duties under Section 301 and 302, Collector is authorized to reliquidate entries and collect additional charges, or to make refunds
respectively, of the Tariff and Customs Code, and safeguard measures under Republic Act No. on statement of errors within the statutory time limit.
8800, where either party may appeal the decision to impose or not to impose said duties. SEC. 1708. Claim for Refund of Duties and Taxes and Mode of Payment. - All claims for
b. Jurisdiction over cases involving criminal offenses as herein provided: refund of duties shall be made in writing and forwarded to the Collector to whom such duties are
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction over all criminal offenses arising from violations of the National paid, who upon receipt of such claim, shall verify the same by the records of his Office, and if
Internal Revenue Code or Tariff and Customs Code and other laws administered by the Bureau found to be correct and in accordance with law, shall certify the same to the Commissioner with
of Internal Revenue or the Bureau of Customs: Provided, however, That offenses or felonies his recommendation together with all necessary papers and documents. Upon receipt by the
mentioned in this paragraph where the principal amount o taxes and fees, exclusive of charges Commissioner of such certified claim he shall cause the same to be paid if found correct. If a
and penalties, claimed is less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or where there is no result of the refund of customs duties there would necessarily result a corresponding refund of
specified amount claimed shall be tried by the regular Courts and the jurisdiction of the CTA shall internal revenue taxes on the same importation, the Collector shall likewise certify the same to
be appellate. Any provision of law or the Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding, the the Commissioner who shall cause the said taxes to be paid, refunded, or tax credited in favor of
criminal action and the corresponding civil action for the recovery of civil liability for taxes and the importer, with advice to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
penalties shall at all times be simultaneously instituted with, and jointly determined in the same
proceeding by the CTA, the filing of the criminal action being deemed to necessarily carry with it
the filing of the civil action, and no right to reserve the filling of such civil action separately from
the criminal action will be recognized.
2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in criminal offenses:
a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax
cases originally decided by them, in their respected territorial jurisdiction.
b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in
the exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax cases originally decided by the Metropolitan
Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in their respective
jurisdiction.
c. Jurisdiction over tax collection cases as herein provided:
1. Exclusive original jurisdiction in tax collection cases involving final and executory
assessments for taxes, fees, charges and penalties: Provided, however, That collection cases
where the principal amount of taxes and fees, exclusive of charges and penalties, claimed is
less than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be tried by the proper Municipal Trial Court,
Metropolitan Trial Court and Regional Trial Court.
2. Exclusive appellate jurisdiction in tax collection cases:
a. Over appeals from the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in tax
collection cases originally decided by them, in their respective territorial jurisdiction.
b. Over petitions for review of the judgments, resolutions or orders of the Regional Trial Courts in
the Exercise of their appellate jurisdiction over tax collection cases originally decided by the
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, in their
respective jurisdiction."

3. APPEAL FROM THE CTA DIVISION TO CTA EN BANC

4. APPEAL TO SC

cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.m
endoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha.mendoza.cha