DOJ Opinion No. 112, s. 1991

DOJ OPINION NO. 112 , s. 1991 August 1, 1991 Commissioner Jose T. Almonte Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City Sir : This refers to your request for opinion relative to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 2307 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1464), as amended, which, insofar as pertinent, provide: "SEC. 2307. Settlement of Case by Payment of Fine or Redemption of Forfeited Property . Subject to the approval of the Commissioner the district collector may, while the case is still pending, except when there is fraud, accept the settlement of any seizure case provided that the owner, importer, exporter or consignee or his agent shall offer to pay to the collector a fine imposed by him upon the property, or in case of forfeiture, the owner, importer, exporter or consignee or his agent shall offer to pay for the domestic market value of the seized article. The Commissioner may accept the settlement of any seizure case on appeal in the same manner. . . ." (emphasis supplied). prcd Specifically, you inquire "whether Sec. 2307 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, (above-quoted), allows for the redemption of goods forfeited in favor of the Government in cases wherein fraud was employed in the importation of the said shipment." LibLex The query, it appears, was precipitated by the decision rendered by the District Collector of Customs, Port of Manila, in Seizure Identification Case No. 91-055 (facility Industrial Sales, Claimant), wherein the redemption of the seized property or shipment was allowed despite your recommendation to the contrary due to the attendance of fraud in the importation thereof. We are constrained to refrain from rendering the opinion requested for the reason that the query relates to the official actuation/ruling of an official of the Bureau of Customs, an office beyond the supervisory and/or reviser authority of the Department of Justice. By established precedents, this Department has consistently declined to pass upon the rulings and/or actuation's of other government officers and officials over whom the Secretary of Justice exercises no supervisory jurisdiction and over whom the Secretary of Justice exercises no supervisory jurisdiction and whose actions he possesses no revisory authority (Sec. of Justice Opns. No. 11, s. 1987; No. 91, s. 1982; Nos. 123 and 9, s. 1980; No. 99, s. 1978; and No. 137, s. 1977). Moreover, in whatever way we resolve the within request, our resolution would not be binding upon the party/parties whose substantive right/s may be affected thereby and who may, in all probability, challenge our opinion, which is merely advisory (id., No. 46, s. 1985), before the appropriate court. Pursuant to settled policy and precedents, we do not render opinion on queries that are judicial in nature or which may be the subject of judicial controversy (id., No. 31, s. 1985; No. 36, s. 1984; No. 73, s. 1983; and Nos. 43 and 126, 1979). We suggest that you elevate the matter to the Commissioner of Customs and/or Secretary of Finance (see Sec. 2315, P.D. No. 1464 [The Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines], as amended; also Sec. 7[7], Chapter 2, Book IV, E.O. No. 292). prcd Please be guided accordingly. Very truly yours, (SGD.) SILVESTER H. BELLO III Acting Secretary