Commissioner of Customs v. Singson

NINETEENTH DIVISION [CA-G.R. SP No. 83282. November 16, 2006.] COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS , petitioner , vs . WILLIAM SINGSON and TRITON SHIPPING CORPORATION , respondents . D E C I S I O N DICDICAN , J p : Before us is a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure which seeks to annul and set aside the Decision dated November 18, 2003 and the Resolution dated March 22, 2004 respectively rendered and issued by the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) in CTA Case No. 6406. The substantial facts of the case, as can be culled from the record, are as follows: On or about September 25, 2001, the elements of the Philippine Navy apprehended the vessel "M/V Gypsy Queen" somewhere in Caubayan Island, Cebu, for carrying 15,000 bags of suspected smuggled rice. M/V Gypsy Queen is owned by respondent Triton Shipping Corporation. During the inspection, the documents presented by the master of the vessel were: a) the Master's Oath of Safe Departure dated August 14, 2001; b) Coasting Manifest indicating that the vessel was loaded with 15,000 bags of rice with Metro Star Rice Mill of Bocaue, Bulacan as the shipper and Raybrig Marketing of Cebu City/William Singson as consignee; and (c) the Roll Book showing that the vessel was cleared by the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), North Harbor Office, Manila on August 14, 2001 and received by a certain PO3 Fernandez of the Philippine Coast Guard in Manila. However, Commander Jose G. Cabilo, Station Commander, Coast Guard Station, Manila, issued a Certification stating that: (1) there was no vessel named "M/V Gypsy Queen" that logged-in or submitted any Master's Oath of Safe Departure on August 15, 2001 and (2) that no personnel by the name of PO3 Fernandez of the Philippine Coast Guard was detailed at Pier 18, Mobile Team, on August 15, 2001. DaAISH Captain Alvin G. Urbi, Commander, Naval Forces Central, Philippine Navy, in his letter to the District Collector of Customs dated September 12, 2001, stated, among others, that a verification made by his office with the Office of the Station Commander, Coast Guard Station, Manila, showed that there was no vessel named M/V Gypsy Queen that logged-in or submitted any Master's Oath of Safe Departure on August 15, 2001. It also found that no personnel by the name of PO3 Fernandez, PCG, was detailed at Pier 18, Mobile Team on said date. Accordingly, (SI) Alejandro M. Bondoc, Cebu Bureau of Customs Special Investigator, issued a memorandum dated September 17, 2001 recommending the issuance of a Warrant of Seizure and Detention (WSD) against the vessel M/V Gypsy Queen and the 15,000 bags of rice loaded therein. On September 18, 2001, the District Collector of Customs, Port of Cebu, issued the WSD against the vessel and the 15,000 bags of rice for violating the Tariff and Customs laws. Thereafter, forfeiture proceedings were conducted where both parties presented their respective evidence. On December 18, 2001, the District Collector rendered a decision in favor of the respondents and ordered the release of the vessel and the said cargo. The dispositive portion of the said decision reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, and by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, the Warrant of Seizure and Detention in the above captioned case is hereby ordered RECALLED and SET-ASIDE. Accordingly, the subject 15,000 bags of rice and the vessel "MV GYPSY QUEEN" are ordered RELEASES (sic) to their respective claimants or their duly authorized representative upon proper identification and compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations." 1 On December 19, 2002, the District Collector issued a 1st Indorsement of the said decision, forwarding the entire records of the case to petitioner Commission of Customs who received the same through the Legal Service, Bureau of Customs, Manila on December 27, 2001. On January 29, 2002, BOC Legal Service referred the decision of the District Collector for approval of petitioner Commissioner of Customs. aADSIc On March 11, 2002, petitioner Commissioner of Customs issued the 2nd Indorsement which reversed and set aside the decision of the District Collector and ordered the forfeiture of the vessel and its 15,000 bags of rice cargo. The 2nd Indorsement reads: "Records show that claimant failed to rebut the Certification issued by Coast Guard Station, Manila that there was no vessel named M/V "Gypsy Queen" that logged-in nor submitted any Master's Oath of Safe Departure on 15 August 2001 at North Harbor. Further, while it is true that the National Food Authority certified on the authenticity of the NFA Receipts and Warehouse Stock Issue submitted by claimant, records is bereft of any evidence, documentary or otherwise, to show that the rice withdrawn from NFA Zambales is the same rice apprehended on board the vessel M/V "Gypsy Queen." "In the light of the foregoing, the Decision of the District Collector decreeing the release of the vessel and cargo is hereby REVERSED and set aside. The vessel M/V "Gypsy Queen" and its load of 15,000 bags of rice is hereby decreed FORFEITED in favor of the government to be disposed of immediately in accordance with Section 2601 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, as amended and other rules and regulations pertinent in the premises." 2 Respondents moved for a reconsideration of the said indorsement but the motion was denied. Consequently, on March 12, 2002, respondents filed a petition review with the Court of Tax Appeals to which petitioner filed his comment on April 16, 2002. On November 18, 2003, the CTA rendered a decision which reversed the decision of petitioner Commissioner of Customs. The dispositive portion of said CTA decision reads: "IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the 2nd Indorsement issued by the Commissioner of Customs is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The vessel M/V "Gypsy Queen" and its cargo of 15,000 bags of rice are hereby ORDERED released to their respective lawful owners. Consequently, the Security Pacific Assurance Corporation Surety Bond [SPAC Bond No. 01564/2002] in the total amount of P21,297,622.50 posted by the petitioners for the provisional release of the vessel and its cargo shall be cancelled upon the finality of this decision. aIcHSC "SO ORDERED." 3 Petitioner moved to reconsider the above decision on December 5, 2003 which motion was denied by the CTA in its resolution dated March 22, 2004. Hence, the instant petition. The sole issue presented by the petitioner which needs to be resolved in the case at bench is this: Did the Court of Tax Appeals err in ordering the release of the vessel and its rice cargo? We find in the negative. The fact that the Commander of the Philippine Coast Guard Station in Manila issued a certification that there was no vessel named M/V Gypsy that logged-in nor submitted the Master's Oath of Safety Departure on August 15, 2001 and that no personnel by the name of PO3 Fernandez, PCG, detailed at Pier 18, Mobile Team on said date, cannot create a presumption that the said vessel was involved in an illegal activity in violation of the Tariff and Customs Code. Such allegation must be backed up and proved by positive evidence. Besides, the said certification standing alone and by itself cannot by no means prove the alleged violation of said Code. Petitioner, however, claimed that the said certification was admitted by respondents in the Joint Stipulation with the CTA. Accordingly, it is petitioner's submission that said certification is more than enough to establish the alleged violation committed by the respondents. Contrary to the contention of the petitioner, we find no iota of evidence, much less an allegation, that the subject vessel came from a foreign port and that the 15,000 bags of rice cargo have been illegally imported or entered into the country contrary to law. It has not been sufficiently established by a preponderance of evidence that the subject vessel actually came from outside the Philippines laden with 15,000 bags of suspected smuggled rice. On the contrary, the uncontroverted evidence adduced by the respondents proved that the vessel originated and sailed from Manila to Cebu: 1. The Bill of Lading showing that M/V Gypsy Queen loaded with 15,000 bags of rice sailed from Manila to Cebu for the consignee respondent Ray Brig Marketing/William Singson 4 ; and 2. Official Receipts Nos. 0703 5 and 44191451 6 showing that proper port and other charges were duly paid by to the Philippine Port Authority. ESDHCa Further, as adequately shown by the respondents and found by the CTA, the 15,000 bags of rice on the board the vessel M/V Gypsy Queen were not imported but locally purchased or sourced from NFA Zambales. As aptly found by the CTA, the documents submitted by the respondents are sufficient to prove that the rice apprehended on board the vessel were the same rice withdrawn from NFA Zambales. It found: "Subsequently, Metro Star sold 15,000 bags of rice to Raybirg Marketing owned by William Singson in the amount of P12,050,000.00. William Singson is duly registered to engage in Wholesaling/Importing Rice under Grains Business License issued by the NFA. Emmanuel Jacinto testified that these 15,000 bags of rice were taken from the 17,000 bags of imported NFA rice sold by him to Metro Star Rice Mill. It was Metro Star that delivered the 15,000 bags of NFA rice sold from its warehouse in Bocaue, Bulacan to Manila for loading. It was the charterer who arranged for the shipment of the 15,000 bags of rice on board M/V "Gypsy Queen" from Manila to Cebu. The shipment of the said 15,000 bags of rice was covered by a Bill of Lading with Metro Star Rice Mill of Bulacan as Shipper and William Singson of Raybirg Marketing in Cebu City as Consignee. And M/V "Gypsy Queen" paid the proper charges and other fees to the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) in the amount of P3,030.00 as shown by Official Receipt No. 44191451 relative to said shipment. "The above evidence submitted by the petitioners are enough to defeat the bare speculation of the Commissioner of Customs that the apprehended 15,000 bags of rice were not the same rice withdrawn from NFA Zambales. In fact, respondents failed to rebut petitioner's documents. Thus, we do not concur with the declaration of the Commissioner that the records are bereft of any evidence to show that the rice withdrawn from NFA Zambales are the same rice apprehended on board the vessel M/V "Gypsy Queen". Granting that under Section 2535 of the Tariff and Customs Code, the claimants have the burden of proof to show that the vessel, vehicle, aircraft, beast or article is not subject to forfeiture, yet, with the presentation of petitioner's testimonial and documentary evidence, the burden of proof is shifted to the respondents. Respondent Commissioner of Customs cannot just order the forfeiture of both rice and vessel by mere assumption of fraud. . . ." 7 Furthermore, it is an undisputed fact that, on February 7, 2002, BOC Deputy Commissioner Gil A. Valera wrote a letter to the National Food Authority (NFA) Administrator, Atty. Anthony R. Abad, requesting confirmation of the genuineness and authenticity of the NFA documents issued by NFA Zambales which were submitted by the respondents in the forfeiture proceedings. On February 15, 2002, the NFA confirmed the authenticity and genuineness of the documents as certified to by Manager Absalum R. Circujales, NFA, Iba, Zambales. It is well to note that petitioner failed to assail and rebut these pieces of evidence presented by respondents during the forfeiture proceedings which were confirmed as genuine and authentic which showed that the rice withdrawn from NFA Zambales were the same rice apprehended on board the vessel M/V "Gypsy Queen." EDATSI WHEREFORE, there being no cogent reason for us to disturb the findings of the Court of Tax Appeals in its assailed Decision dated November 18, 2003 and its Resolution dated March 22, 2004 in CTA Case No. 6406, we hereby AFFIRM the same. SO ORDERED. Barza and Baltazar-Padilla, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1. Rollo , pp. 89-90 2. Id . at 74 3. Id . at 46-47 4. Rollo , p. 85, District Collector of Customs' Decision 5. Id . at p. 82 6. Id at 81 7. Id . at 45-46