Yaokasin v. Commissioner of Customs
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: The Philippine Coast Guard seized 9,000 bags of refined sugar being unloaded from the M/V Tacloban and turned them over to the Bureau of Customs. Petitioner Jimmy O. Yaokasin presented a sales invoice to prove local purchase. The District Collector of Customs proceeded with the seizure. Procedural History: Show-cause hearings were conducted, and on June 7, 1988, the District Collector ordered the release of the sugar. On June 10, 1988, the records were transmitted to the Commissioner of Customs. On June 14, 1988, the District Collector sealed the warehouse. The Economic Intelligence and Investigation Board (EIIB) filed a Motion for Reconsideration based on evidence that the sugar was of foreign origin. On July 4, 1988, the Commissioner of Customs returned the folder to the District Collector for resolution of the motion for reconsideration. On the same date, petitioner secured a writ of replevin from the RTC. On July 12, 1988, respondents filed an Answer assailing the court's jurisdiction and a Petition for certiorari and Prohibition in the Court of Appeals to annul the replevin order. On July 15, 1988, the Collector of Customs reconsidered his June 7, 1988 decision, declared the sugar forfeited, and urged the Commissioner to order its transfer. On the same day, the Court of Appeals restrained the RTC from proceeding. The Petition: Petitioner contended that the June 7, 1988 decision became final and executory due to the absence of an appeal by the aggrieved party within the prescribed period, thus upholding the release of the sugar. Respondents argued that since the June 7, 1988 decision was adverse to the government, it was subject to automatic review by the Commissioner of Customs.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commissioner of Customs has the power of automatic review over decisions of the Collector of Customs in seizure and protest cases adverse to the government; and whether Customs Memorandum Order No. 20-87, implementing Section 12 of the Integrated Reorganization Plan, is valid and applicable. Whether Section 12 of the Integrated Reorganization Plan conflicts with Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The temporary restraining order issued in this case is made permanent. The decision of the District Collector of Customs ordering the release of the sugar is set aside, and the sugar is declared forfeited in favor of the government.
Ratio Decidendi
On the power of automatic review and the validity of CMO No. 20-87: The Court held that decisions of the Collector of Customs in seizure and protest cases adverse to the government are subject to automatic review by the Commissioner of Customs. This power is derived from Section 12 of the Integrated Reorganization Plan (IRP), which was adopted as part of the law of the land by Presidential Decree No. 1. Customs Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 20-87, issued by the Acting Commissioner of Customs, merely directed strict compliance with this existing provision of law. The Court emphasized that this provision was conceived to protect the government's interest in the collection of taxes and customs duties, preventing situations where a collector's favorable decision to an importer might go unnoticed and uncorrected by higher authorities. The automatic review mechanism serves as a safeguard against potential corruption or collusion. The Court found that the IRP, as part of P.D. No. 1, remains operative as it has not been repealed by subsequent legislation. Therefore, CMO No. 20-87, which implements this provision, is valid. On the conflict between Section 12 of the IRP and Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code: The Court ruled that Section 12 of the IRP and Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code do not conflict; they may co-exist. Section 2313 provides for the procedure for review upon appeal by the aggrieved party (importer or owner of the goods), while Section 12 of the IRP provides for the automatic review when the collector's decision is adverse to the government. These provisions address two different situations: one where the decision favors the importer and the other where it favors the government. The Court clarified that the provision for automatic review was intended to cure the anomaly where a decision favorable to the taxpayer, and thus unfavorable to the government, might not be appealed by the importer, leaving the government unprotected. The Court distinguished the present case from Sy Man vs. Jacinto, where a memorandum order was deemed invalid for lack of departmental approval and publication, and for being inconsistent with existing law. In this case, CMO No. 20-87 was implementing an existing provision of law (Section 12 of the IRP). The Court also addressed the argument that the IRP and CMO No. 20-87 were not published, stating that P.D. No. 1, which adopted the IRP, was published in the Official Gazette. CMO No. 20-87, being an administrative order addressed to subordinates, did not require publication in the Official Gazette as it had no general applicability.
Main Doctrine
Decisions of the Collector of Customs in seizure and protest cases that are adverse to the government are subject to automatic review by the Commissioner of Customs, as provided by Section 12 of the Integrated Reorganization Plan and implemented by Customs Memorandum Order No. 20-87, notwithstanding Section 2313 of the Tariff and Customs Code which pertains to appeals by aggrieved parties.