Commissioner of Customs v. Court of Tax Appeals

SEVENTH DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP No. 42590. May 31, 1999.] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS , petitioner , vs . THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and AGFHA, INCORPORATED , respondents . D E C I S I O N ADEFUIN-DE LA CRUZ , B. , J p : This is a Petition for Review filed by petitioner Commissioner of Customs seeking to annul the Decision dated November 4, 1996 of the Court of Tax Appeals in CTA Case No. 5290, entitled: "AGFHA Incorporated, petitioner vs. Commissioner of Customs, respondent", the dispositive portion of which reads: "WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the decision of the respondent in Customs Case No. 94-017, dated August 25, 1995, affirming the decision of the MICP Collector, dated September 5, 1994, which decreed the forfeiture of the subject shipments in favor of the government, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent is hereby ORDERED to effect the immediate RELEASE of the subject shipment of goods in favor of the petitioner. No costs. SO ORDERED." (CTA Decision p. 26; Rollo, p. 47) The ANTECEDENTS of the instant petition, having been partly summarized by the Commissioner of Customs, were quoted in toto in the aforecited decision rendered by the public respondent Court of Tax Appeals (CTA, for short), as follows: "That on 12 December 1992, the subject shipment arrived at the Manila International Container Port [MICP] aboard the Vessel S/S ACX under Bill of Lading No. HKT-138899, consigned to GQ Garments Inc., of 244 Escolta St., Binondo, Manila. It's SGS-CRF [Societe Generale de Surveillance-Clean Report of Findings] indicated AGFHA, INC., as consignee, and that FIL-JAPAN, the shipments shipping agent, filed for the amendment of the Inward manifest to change the consignee from GQ Garments Inc., to Agfha, Inc. "On January 22, 1993, FIL-JAPAN issued to AGFHA, INC., the amended Inward Foreign Manifest. Subsequently, AGFHA, INC., forwarded the same for approval by the Law Division, MICP which the latter indorsed to the Customs Intelligence Investigation Service <CIIS>. "While the request for amendment was being processed, the CIIS, however, placed subject shipment under Hold Order No. H/C1/01/2293/01 dated 22 January, 1993, on the ground that, per its findings, GQ Garments Inc., could not be located in its given address at 244 Escolta, Binondo, Manila and as such therefore fictitious. "During the hearing of this case, AGFHA, INC., through its President, Wilson Kho, filed a motion for intervention contending that AGFHA, Inc., is the lawful owner and actual consignee of the subject shipment. On 2 March 1993, the District Collector of Customs granted the aforesaid motion. "On July 1, 1993, after the trial on the merits, the Collector of Customs came up with a draft decision ordering the lifting of the Warrant of Seizure and Detention issued on factual findings that G.Q. Garments, Inc., is not a fictitious corporation and that there was a valid waiver of rights of the subject shipment by G.Q. Garments, Inc., to Agfha, Inc. Moreover, it ordered the continuation of the processing of the entry for the eventual release of the shipment without prejudice to the amendment of the Inward Foreign Manifest changing the consignee in the Bill of Lading and Inward Foreign Manifest from G.Q. Garments, Inc., to Agfha, Inc. "The aforecited draft decision when submitted to the Deputy Commissioner for clearance and/or approval was referred by the latter to the CIIS for comment. "The CIIS, however, vigorously opposed the said draft decision on the ground that GQ Garments, Inc., is a fictitious consignee and that even if it does exists, its president John John Barlin had no authority to waive the subject shipment in favor of Agfha, Inc. "In a 4th Indorsement dated October 4, 1993, the Deputy Commissioner, relying solely on the comment of the CIIS, denied the Draft Decision of the Collector of Customs. "On November 17, 1993, Claimant, G.Q. Garments, Inc., and Claimant-Intervenor, AGFHA, INC., filed a Joint Motion for Reconsideration over the 4th Indorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner. Consequently, the aforesaid motion for reconsideration was given due course and both claimant and intervenor were given the opportunity to present evidence to substantiate their joint motion for reconsideration. "After hearing on the aforesaid motion, the Collector of Customs issued a draft order granting claimant and intervenor's joint motion for reconsideration on the ground that evidences presented clearly established the legal existence of G.Q. Garments, Inc., and as to the objection of the prosecution that John John Barlin has no authority to waive the subject shipment to Agfha, Inc., the Collector of Customs, based on its factual findings, resolved that the aforesaid unauthorized waiver had been rendered foreclosed and moot when a Board Resolution of the Board of Directors of G.Q. Garments, Inc., ratifying the acts of its president was presented. cdt "In a 1st Indorsement dated June 8, 1994, the Collector of Customs forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs for clearance/approval the aforesaid draft order granting the joint motion for reconsideration of Claimant and Intervenor and, consequently, lifting and/or quashing the warrant of seizure and detention issued against the subject shipment and its subsequent release to intervenor-claimant. "In its 2nd Indorsement dated June 20, 1994, the Deputy Commissioner forwarded the aforesaid order to this Office for clearance and approval. "In a 3rd Indorsement, this Office directed the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to deny the proposed order of the MICP District Collector of Customs. The pertinent portion of said indorsement reads: '1. The subject shipment arrived on 12, December 1992 at MICP with GQ Garments, Inc., as the consignee in the Bill of Lading and the Inward Foreign Manifest. However, it is quite suspicious that it took more than one (1) month before the alleged error in the consignee was discovered by the shipper and by AGFHA, INC., and by GQ Garments especially considering the fact that there is a CRF naming therein AGFHA as consignee of the subject shipment which means that the shipper was contracted by SGS so that the latter can inspect the subject shipment to be imported by consignee; that Mr. Wilson Kho admitted it was AGFHA who ordered the shipment by telephone call; that prior to this shipment there was no order placed in the name of GQ Garments from Indonesia; and that this is already the second of four shipments ordered by AGFHA, Inc., from Jakarta, Indonesia. 2. Mr. Wilson Kho's explanation that the shipper committed an error in naming, GQ Garments as that consignee of the subject shipment because his business card contains the name of both GQ GARMENTS and AGFHA, INC., appears to be an afterthought and self-serving. Moreover, he admitted that he is not an officer nor even a stockholder of GQ GARMENTS so why should his business card indicated his name as President/General Manager of GQ GARMENTS and AGFHA, INC. That is clearly a misrepresentation. 3. During the hearing on April 15, 1994, Mr. John John Barlin of GQ GARMENTS admitted that the letter dated February 11, 1993 (Exh. "4" MR) purportedly signed by him (in which he allegedly informed the Collector of Customs that AGFHA, INC., is the rightful owner of the subject shipment and that GQ GARMENTS is waiving its right over the same) actually came from Wilson Kho. In other words, the said letter is spurious. 4. From the admissions of both Mr. Wilson and Mr. John John Barlin, it is clear that GQ GARMENTS is actually owned by Mr. Wilson Kho and its corporate franchise appears to be being used to perpetrate fraud other scheme to confuse authorities". (pp. 1-4. Decision of respondent in Customs Case No. 94-017 [Seizure Identification No. 93-083 (MICP), Exh. "M", pp. 96-100, CTA rec.) "In deference to the directive of the respondent, the District Collector of Customs ordered the forfeiture of the subject shipment in favor of the government. On appeal, the respondent found no cogent reason to disturb the decision of the District Collector." (Decision, pp. 2-5; Rollo, pp. 23-26) Dissatisfied therewith, AGFHA, Incorporated (AGFHA, for brevity) was prompted to file a Petition for Review with the CTA. Hence, after the hearing, CTA issued the assailed decision earlier adverted to. Again, not satisfied with the aforecited decision, the Commissioner of Customs filed on December 27, 1996 the instant petition for review with this Court based on the sole ground, to wit: "The CTA committed reversible error in failing to consider documents showing that the subject shipment is liable to forfeiture under Section 2530 (f) and (1) 3-5 of the Tariff and Customs Code." (Rollo, p. 15) On January 23, 1997 this Court directed AGFHA to file its Comment to the petition. Instead of filing its Comment, AGFHA filed a Motion to Dismiss (Rollo, pp. 51-52) dated February 19, 1997, on the ground that the said decision of the CTA has become final and executory and was, in fact, recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments by virtue of Entry of Judgment issued by the CTA on November 27, 1996. (Rollo, p. 53) An Opposition to the motion to dismiss, dated February 26, 1997 was filed by the petitioner on March 3, 1997. (Rollo, p. 55) Thereafter, a Reply (To the Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss) dated March 7, 1997, was filed by AGFHA on March 10, 1997. (Rollo, pp. 59-61) On May 5, 1997, this Court (Sixth Division) denied the motion to dismiss and AGFHA was directed to file its Comment to the petition. (Rollo, p. 67) On June 3, 1997, AGFHA filed its Motion for Reconsideration (Rollo, pp. 68-70), which motion, however, was denied by this Court (Fifteenth Division) on May 15, 1998 (Rollo, p. 76) for lack of merit. Thereafter, AGFHA filed its comment on the petition for review on July 30, 1998. (Rollo, p. 93-114). AGFHA filed on December 11, 1998 a "Motion to Order the Release of the Subject Shipments" (Rollo, p. 124-126). Petitioner filed its Comment on the said motion on March 5, 1999 (Rollo, pp. 136-137) alleging, inter alia , that it was not interposing any objection thereto provided that said AGFHA file a cash bond , to be determined by the Collector of Customs and duly approved by the Commissioner of Customs, conformably with Section 2301 of the Tariff and Customs Code as amended by RA 7651. In the alternative, the petitioner has suggested that the subject shipments be sold at public auction and the proceeds thereof be kept in custodia legis or in escrow by this Court during the pendency of the petition. At this juncture, We consider it proper to incorporate the resolution of the pending "Motion to Order the Release of the Subject Shipments" in the disposition of the instant petition for review. Delving into the merits of the petition, this Court finds the instant petition devoid of merit. Thus, We are, therefore, inclined to uphold the findings of the public respondent CTA. Petitioner contends that the naming of GQ Garments, Inc., as the consignee of the subject shipments, could not have been a case of mere inadvertence based on the following instances: a) Considering that the SGS had earlier contacted the shipper to inform the latter that the former would inspect the goods, and that thereafter SGS issued a Clean Report Findings (CRF) naming AGFHA as the consignee thereof. b) The explanation of Mr. Wilson Kho, President of AGFHA, that the shipper committed an error in naming GQ Garments, Inc. instead of AGFHA as the consignee was because his business card contains the names of both GQ Garments and AGFHA; while Mr. Kho himself admitted during the hearing in the Bureau of Customs that he was neither an officer nor a stockholder of GQ Garments, Inc. c) Moreover, the seizure of the subject shipment was initiated because its consignee GQ Garments' existence is questionable and it cannot be located at its given address at 224 Escolta St. Binondo, Manila, which address later on was found out that it pertains to AGFHA. d) During the hearings before the Bureau of Customs, AGFHA failed to explain the time interval from December 12, 1992, the time the goods arrived in Manila, to January 11, 1993 or thirty (30) days after the arrival of goods when the request for the amendment of the bill of lading was made. e) Although the waiver on the right over the subject shipments was made in a letter dated February 11, 1993 by Mr. John Barlin, Manager of GQ Garments, Inc., and, thereafter, the said waiver was ratified in a Board Resolution dated October 15, 1993, both documents, the waiver and the ratification, were dubious and questionable as the signature of Mr. Barlin in both documents were not identical or closely similar to each other. (Petition, pp. 8-11; Rollo, pp. 17-19) Section 2530(f) and (I)3-5 of the Tariff and Customs Code, provide that, in order that a shipment be liable to forfeiture, it must be proved that fraud has been committed by the importer/consignee to evade payment of the duties due. To establish the existence of fraud, the onus probandi is on the part of the Bureau of Customs who ordered the forfeiture of the subject shipments. The BOC, however, failed, as stated by public respondent CTA, thus: "After careful review of the facts and circumstances obtaining at bar and relating the same to the legal bases relied upon by the respondent, We readily rule in favor of the petitioner. From the standpoint of procedural law alone, respondent's performance in the trial of this case is utterly dismal and disfavored. He did not bother to prove before Us the presence of the element of fraud in the importation of the subject shipment. What he did is merely to cross-examine witness Mr. Wilson Kho in the hearing of March 4, 1996 (minutes of the session, p. 58, CTA rec.) and nothing else. Respondent is strongly reminded that cases brought before this Court are litigated de novo, meaning the parties are expected to adduce evidence in support of their respective legal theories. This particular observation brings special relevance when we take into account the nature of the instant petition, which is one involving forfeiture. Our Honorable Supreme Court has invariably laid down the rule in the matter of fraud and forfeiture, thus: 'Fraud is never presumed. It must be proved (Republic vs. Ker and Company, Ltd., L-21609, Sept. 26, 1966). Failure of proof of fraud is a bar to forfeiture. The reason is that "forfeitures are not favored in law and equity (Yu Phi Kim vs. Amparo, 86 Phil. 441, 446)." [Farm Implement and Machinery Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs, 24 SCRA 905] 'Applying subparagraph (5), fraud must be committed by an importer/consignee to evade payment of the duties due, We support the stance of the court of Tax Appeals that the Commissioner of Customs failed to show that fraud had been committed by the private respondent. The fraud contemplated by law must be actual and not constructive. It must be intentional fraud, consisting of deception willfully and deliberately done or resorted to in order to induce another to give up some right. (Hon. Farolan, Jr. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 217 SCRA 298). xxx xxx xxx "As can be gathered from the special and affirmative defenses of the respondent, supra, it was alleged that he never presumed fraud, but that the circumstances surrounding the case and the documents presented collectively pointed to the existence of fraud. "We vigorously disagree. This Court could not fathom any individual or collective importance of the said findings as indicative of the actual commission of fraud or any attempt or frustration thereof. As defined, actual or intentional fraud consist of deception willfully and deliberately done or resorted to in order to induce another to give up some right (Hon. Ramon Farolan, Jr. vs. Court of Tax Appeals, supra, citing the case of Aznar vs. Court of Tax Appeals, 58 SCRA 543). It must amount to intentional wrong-doing with the sole object of avoiding the tax. (Aznar vs. Court of Tax Appeals, supra.) "The circumstances or findings presented by the respondent in his Answer do not reveal to us any kind of deception that could have been played upon his Bureau to give up some of its right, e.g., to collect correct taxes on properly declared shipment of goods. Such circumstances are nothing more than mere half-baked premises that fail to support the proposition sought to be established which is the commission of fraud in accordance with Section 2530 (f) and (1)-3, 4 and 5 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, as amended. (CTA Decision, pp. 12-15, Rollo, pp. 33-36) Anent the alleged existence of fraud by naming GQ Garments, Inc. which was contested by the petitioner as one which was not a case of mere inadvertence, the public respondent categorically ruled: "Firstly, respondent contends that the naming of G.Q. Garments Inc. as consignee in the Bill of Lading and Inward Foreign Manifest could not have been a case of inadvertence because the shipper, prior to the shipment of the goods. Is contacted by SGS for pre-inspection of said shipment, and in this case, SGS issued a CRF naming Agfha, Inc. as the consignee of the goods inspected. "In other words, respondent is saying that the shipper knew all along that Agfha, Inc., was the real consignee due to the pre-inspection done by SGS and the corresponding issuance of the CRF naming Agfha, Inc., as the consignee. So that in naming G.Q. Garments, Inc. as the consignee in the Bill of Lading and Inward Foreign Manifest, the same was intentional and deliberately done and not a case of error or inadvertence as claimed by the petitioner. "We could not believe that respondent assumed the above circumstance as a fact in his attempt to forfeit the subject shipment in favor of the government. The respondent is trying to second guess the act of the shipper that the latter had prior knowledge of Agfha, Inc., as the true consignee, before the shipment. We deem such conclusion of the respondent as pure hearsay. Obviously, it is only the shipper and/or the SGS who could personally, vouch for events that transpired prior to the shipment of the goods subject matter of this case. "And contrary to the overwhelming evidence submitted by the petitioner, respondent chose to close his eyes to the truth. Instead of relying on his adamant belief, respondent should have adhered to the basic rules on evidence. Petitioner has offered the following corroborating and convincing evidence (also submitted in the hearings conducted before the collector of Customs and respondent, TSN. Hearings of February 5, 1996, pp. 28, 33-34, 37, 40; and, March 4, 1996, p. 44), namely: '1. Telex message from the shipping agent of shipper, P.T. Mandals Suburb Textile Industry to FIL-JAPAN Shipping Company Manila, requesting amendment of the Bill of Lading and other shipping records, to change consignee from G.Q. garments, Inc. to Agfha, Inc. Exhibit "A"; '2. Application for Amendment of the Inward Foreign Manifest filed by the shipper's agent, FIL-JAPAN Shipping Company, for approval with the Customs Law Division, Manila International Container Port (MICP), to change the name of the consignee from G.Q. Garments, Inc. to Agfha, Inc. Exhibit "B"; '3. Letter dated February 10, 1993 by Wilson Kho, president of Agfha, Inc. addressed to Atty. Buenaventura Maniego, District Collector of Customs, MICP, North Harbor, Manila, manifesting the former's intention and willingness to pay the corresponding duties and taxes on the subject shipment based on a higher valuation indicated in the Clean Report of Findings (CRF) as recommended by the SGS, as against the lower valuation indicated in the invoice Exhibit "C"; '4. Bill of Lading covering the subject shipment showing the shippers as P.T. Mandala Subur Textile Industry and the consignee as G.Q. Garments, Inc. Exhibit "D"; '5. The Clean Report of Findings (CRF) dated December 9, 1992 showing the consignee of the subject shipment as Agfha, Inc. and the shipper as P.T. Mandala Subur Textile Industry Exhibit "E"; and '6. Import Authority No. (IAN) 18.012.37679, assigned by the Central Bank of the Philippines appearing on the right hand portion of the CRF marked as Exhibit "E" Exhibit "E-1". (pp. 1-3, Petitioner's Formal Offer of Documentary Exhibits, pp. 59-61, CTA rec.) "The above evidence speak for themselves. If any deception is intended by petitioner Agfha, Inc., why would it apply for an Import Authority Number under its name? It knew for certain that the subject goods will be pre-inspected by SGS under its name. If we are going to believe the respondent that somehow the naming of G.Q. Garments, Inc., was a deception, then petitioner must be a fool because it openly and officially declared the subject shipment under its name whereby it is expected that authorities through the required CRF would learn of the glaring discrepancy. Respondent's assumption is not in accord with the ordinary course of life. We believe here that petitioner through its President, Mr. Wilson Kho, had taken ordinary care of his business concerns (Sec. 3[d] of Rule 131 of the Revised Rules of Court), especially in applying for an Import Authority. Petitioner, thus, is simply complying with the import procedures normally attendant to its business of importing textile products. dctai "Moreover, the steps taken by the shipping agent to effect the necessary correction in the Bill of Lading and Inward Foreign Manifest should have been appreciated with greater weight than the general inference arrived at by the respondent that the naming of the consignee was not a case of inadvertence. We note that the technical description of the subject shipment appearing on the CRF and the Bill of Lading are exactly the same except for the name of the consignee (Exhs. "D" and "E", pp. 69-79, CTA rec., respectively). Right before his eyes, however, respondent still refused to heed the statements of the shipping agent that there was a mistake in the naming of the consignee. Thus, a mere mistake, taken as simply that, cannot be considered as fraudulent intent, more so, if in the course of the subject importation it appears clearly that such mistake is being corrected. "Furthermore, respondent is vacillating. The SGS-CRF should have been given the strongest probative weight in clarifying the issue of who is the real consignee in the case at bar. The SGS is the alter ego of the respondent when it comes to pre-inspection of shipment destined for importation into the Philippines from all countries. It takes into consideration such matters as regards the quality, quantity, price, dutiable value, verification of Customs and Tariff Code Classification and Verification of tariff rates of imported goods prior to shipment to the Philippines (Customs Memorandum No. 39-92[11.1 and 4]). Yet, respondent elected to disregard the contents of the CRF naming Agfha, Inc., as the consignee of the subject shipment. "Lastly, petitioner expressed its willingness to pay the higher duties and taxes imposed on the subject shipment as indicated in the CRF. This should have been accepted by the respondent. From the very start up to the end, petitioner had been consistent in its actuations. It applied for an Import Authority with the Central Bank of the Philippines which authority was used by the SGS in making the necessary pre-inspection and issuing the CRF. It undertook remedial measures to amend the consignee in the Bill of Lading and Inward Foreign Manifest when the shipper made a mistake. It then manifested to pay the correct taxes and duties. The government stands to lose nothing. Respondent could have easily alleviated the problem besetting the petitioner. Unfortunately, respondent was not equal to the occasion as demanded by it. (Decision, pp. 15-20; Rollo, pp. 36-41) Further, the act of the BOC questioning the legal existence of GQ Garments, Inc., was done not in its proper forum. Inasmuch as the issue should have been elevated in a quo warranto proceeding, public respondent CTA pointed out, thus: "On the second finding of the respondent that investigations made by CIIS on the address and incorporation papers of G.Q. Garments, Inc. with the SEC show questionable existence. We believe that respondent is deviating from the truth. From his own admission, respondent conducted investigations on G.Q. Garments, Inc.'s incorporation papers. He did not say that the latter corporation had no papers and that it was not registered with the SEC. In fact, respondent impliedly admitted that G.Q. Garments, Inc., is a registered and existing corporation when it sought to locate the corporation on the given address provided in its incorporation papers. "The series of hardships befalling petitioner stemmed originally from the information gathered by the respondent from his CIIS agents that simply because G.Q. Garments, Inc. cannot be located on its given address, ergo, it was inexistent. The conclusion reached by CIIS agents is contrary to law. Section 20 of the Corporation Code of the Philippines states, thus: 'SECTION 20. De facto corporations . Incorporation of any corporation claiming in good faith to be a corporation under this Code, and its right to exercise corporate powers, shall not be inquired into collaterally in any private suit to which such corporation may be a party. Such inquiry may be made by the Solicitor General in a quo warranto proceeding.' "Until, declared by the courts in a proper quo warranto proceeding, the corporate existence of G.Q. Garments, Inc., cannot thus be collaterally attacked and impugned by the respondent. "Of importance, evidence on record point to the fact that G.Q. Garments, Inc., is a registered importer with Registration No. 91-5624 under Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service List of Registered Importers as contained in Customs Memorandum Order No. 149-88 for the year 1991 (Exhs. "F" and "F-1", p. 71, CTA rec.). "Added to this, petitioner through its President, Mr. Wilson Kho, has satisfactorily explained the inability of the CIIS agents to locate the given address of G.Q. Garments, Inc., Mr. Kho stated, thus: xxx xxx xxx 'A The address on the Bill of Lading (BL) is #244 Escolta Street, Binondo, Manila and the S.E.C. address of the G.Q. Garments, Inc. is #955 Muelle de Banco Nacional Street, Binondo, Manila but it's on the same building. The building has two entrance[s] one at the front is #244 Escolta, Street, Binondo, Manila and at the back is #955 Muelle de Banco Nacional Street, Binondo, Manila. I think the representative of the Bureau of Customs did not explore nor asked the guard or even inquired as to the whereabout of the office." (TSN, Hearing of March 4, 1996, pp. 50-51) "Verily, respondent's issuance of Warrant of Seizure and Detention and the forfeiture order issued against the subject shipment which were originally based on the alleged inexistence of G.Q. Garments, Inc., (Admitted by respondent in his Answer, par. 5; p. 36 CTA rec.) bore the imprint of arbitrariness and deserve to be stricken down as lacking sufficient basis in fact and in law." (Decision, pp. 20-22; Rollo, pp. 42-43) In respect of the long interval of time between the arrival of subject shipments in Manila and the request for the amendments in the bill of lading in favor of AGFHA, the public respondent CTA, ruled: ". . . respondent avers that the long time interval between the arrival of the goods and the request for amendment of the Bill of Lading and Inward Foreign Manifest as well as that between the request for amendment and petitioner's intervention as claimant of the goods were never explained during the hearings conducted by his Bureau. "Taken as is, the preceding assertion of respondent is without probative value. It does not purport to demonstrate any specific act or omission of the petitioner that can be construed as fraught with deception. What if there were delays in the processing of the papers attendant to the subject shipment? Does the failure to explain this in the hearings mean that there was a reasonable ground to believe that fraud has been committed? What we are seeing at bar is respondent's inclination in conjuring up surmises and suspicions on a mere delay without any credible backing of facts. (Decision, pp. 22-23; Rollo, pp. 43-44) Likewise, in reference to the alleged dubious existence of the letter of waiver and the subsequent ratification of the said letter by the Board of Directors of GQ Garments. Inc. in favor of AGFHA, the public respondent has declared in this wise, to wit: "Lastly, respondent avers that the letter of waiver, dated February 11, 1993, of Mr. John John Barlin, manager of G.Q. Garments, Inc., and the Board Resolution, ratifying the waiver, were both dubious and questionable as to the signature of Mr. Barlin which is found to be not identical nor closely similar to each other in said documents. "First of all, it is pointed out in the decision of the respondent that the letter of waiver, dated February 11, 1993, was spurious (p. 4, Decision of Respondent: p., 99, CTA rec.). However, the authenticity and due execution of the Board Resolution (Exh. "H", p. 73, CTA rec.) has not be doubted. "In the light of the above, We consider the apprehension of the respondent quite untenable. The Board Resolution clearly confirmed both the ownership of Agfha, Inc. over the subject shipment and the letter of G.Q. Garments, Inc., dated February 11, 1993, consigning all its right over the said shipment to Agfha, Inc. We note that Mr. John John Barlin, as President, was a signatory to the Board Resolution. This in effect admits of the fact that his signature in the previous letter was his also, notwithstanding the alleged dissimilarity. Be that as it may, the Board Resolution separately confirmed the ownership of Agfha, Inc. over the subject shipment. "Thus, we arrived at the overall conclusion that the findings of the respondent in his assailed decision are not altogether in consonance with Section 2530(f) and (1)-3, 4 and 5 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, as amended. Respondent failed to identify any act of the petitioner or even that of G.Q. Garments, Inc., in relation to the importation of the subject shipment as being contrary to law as provided in said Section 2530 (f). In the same vein, respondent was not able to mention any false declaration, affidavit, invoice or other documents; or such other practice or device contrary to law as having been participated in by the petitioner or G.Q. Garments, Inc., which be can be deemed as violative of said Section 2530 (1)-3, 4 and 5. (Decision, pp. 23-25; Rollo, pp. 44-46) In fine, petitioner Commissioner of Customs failed to support his finding that private respondent AGFHA. Incorporated has committed actual or intentional fraud attendant to the importation of the subject shipments, in order to declare the shipments liable for forfeiture under Section 2530 (f) and (1)-3, 4 and 5 of the Tariff And Customs Code of the Philippines, as amended by RA 7651. If at all, the erroneous naming of G.Q. Garments instead of AGFHA. Incorporated in the Inward Foreign Manifest as the consignee of the subject shipment, can be attributed to FIL-JAPAN, the shipment's shipping agent and not to herein private respondent AGFHA, Inc. In the case of Farolan, Jr. vs. Court of Tax Appeals (217 SCRA 298, 303), the Supreme Court: "In the case at bar, although it cannot be denied that private respondent caused to be prepared through its customs broker a false import entry or declaration, it cannot be charged with the wrongful making thereof because such entry or declaration merely restated faithfully the data found in the corresponding certificate of origin, certificate of manager of the shipper, the packing lists and the bill of lading which were all prepared by its suppliers abroad. If, at all, the wrongful making or falsity of the documents abovementioned can only be attributed to Bagong Buhay's foreign suppliers or shippers." Perforce the finding too of the Commissioner of Customs that AGFHA had committed fraud in connection with the importation of the subject shipments without any concrete evidence to support his findings and conclusions was based on presumptions and conjectures which could not stand scrutiny by this Court. Upon this point, the Supreme Court ruled: ". . . We again remind those concerned that decisions, however concisely written, must distinctly and clearly set forth the fact and law upon which they are based. This rule applies as well to dispositions by quasi-judicial and administrative bodies." (Naguiat vs. National Labor Relations Commission, 269 SCRA 564, 577). WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Customs is hereby ordered to effect the immediate release of the shipment of AGFHA. Incorporated described as "2 x 40 Cont. No. NYKU - 6772906 and NYKU - 6632117 STA 197 Bales of Textile Grey Cloth" placed under Hold Order No. H/CI/01/2293/01 dated 22 January 1993. No costs. SO ORDERED. Martin, Jr . and Velasco, Jr . , JJ . , concur.