361 Phil. 727
BELLOSILLO, J.:
1. The 40 ft. van was made to appear as a consolidation shipment consisting of 232 packages with Translink Int'l. Freight Forwarder as shipper and Transglobe Int'l., Inc. as consignee;On those accounts which were deemed to constitute a violation of Sec. 2503 in relation to Sec. 2530, pars. (f) and (m), subpars. 3, 4 and 5, of the Tariff and Customs Code, the EIIB recommended seizure of the entire shipment. On 21 May 1992 District Collector of Customs Emma M. Rosqueta issued the corresponding warrant of seizure and detention.
2. There were eight (8) shippers and eight (8) consignees declared as co-loaders and co-owners of the contents of the van, when in truth the entire shipment belongs to only one entity;
3. Not one of the items declared as the contents of the van, i.e., various hand tools, water cooling tower g-clamps compressors, bright roping wire and knitting machine w(as) found in the van. Instead the van was fully stuffed with textile piece goods.[1]
Record shows that the shipment consists of goods which are in legal contemplation not prohibited, nor the release thereof to the claimant contrary to law x x x x the spirit and intent of Executive Order No. 38, to increase and accelerate revenue collection by the government thru redemption of forfeited cargoes, which would also benefit importers by giving them the chance to recover portions of their investment x x x x[3]Chief of the Law Division Buenaventura S. Tenorio concurred in the recommendation. On the same day, District Collector Rosqueta recommended approval thereof and forwarded the case to respondent Commissioner of Customs Guillermo L. Parayno Jr. through Deputy Commissioner Licerio C. Evangelista.[4] On 7 October 1992 the latter likewise recommended favorable action thereon.[5] However respondent Commissioner Parayno Jr. denied the offer of redemption in his 1st Indorsement dated 27 November 1992 for these reasons -
1. The shipment was made to appear to be an innocuous consolidation shipment destined for stripping at an outside CY-CFS[6] in order to conceal the textile fabrics;Thus respondent Commissioner Parayno Jr. instructed the Auction and Cargo Disposal Division of the Port of Manila to include the shipment in the next public auction.[8] On 8 February 1993 reconsideration was denied.[9] Petitioner moved for another reconsideration which was referred to District Collector Rosqueta for comment. Even after further review, she maintained her previous recommendation allowing redemption -
2. The eight (8) co-loaders/consignees of the shipment are all fictitious;
3. Under Section 3B, CMO 87-92, offers of redemption shall be denied when the seized shipment is consigned to a fictitious consignee.[7]
1. Since no entry has been filed so far, the consignee could not be faulted for misdeclaration under Section 2503 of the Tariff and Customs Code. While the shipment was misdeclared in the rider and the manifest, the consignee is innocent of the facts stated therein as it had no hand in their preparation or issuance. Law and regulation allow the amendment of the manifest at any time before the filing of entry in order to protect the innocent consignee.Nevertheless, reconsideration was again denied on 1 July 1993.[11] On 4 August 1993 the forfeiture of the shipment and denial of the request for redemption were affirmed by respondent Commissioner Parayno Jr.[12]
2. Transglobe International, Inc., is a juridical person duly organized in accordance with the laws of the Philippines and is qualified as a consignee. It is not fictitious as evidenced by its Articles of Incorporation registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
3. The shipment consists of goods which are in legal contemplation not prohibited, nor the release thereof to the Claimant contrary to law, and the redemption offer is well within the purview of Executive Order No. 38.[10]
The findings of the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau: 'that the shipment was made to appear to be an innocuous consolidation shipment destined for stripping at an outside CY-CFS in order to conceal the textile fabrics,' and 'that the eight (8) coloaders/consignees were all fictitious' had not been refuted during the seizure proceedings by respondent Transglobe International, Inc. The failure of respondent Transglobe to refute this fact negates its claim that no violation of the above cited provisions (Sec. 2503 in relation to Sec. 2530, pars. (f) and (m), subpars. 3, 4 and 5 of the Tariff and Customs Code as amended) had been committed. The findings of the EIIB above referred to remain unassailed and uncontradicted. Said findings clearly show badges of fraud x x x x The seizure of the property in question was made upon findings that the documents covering the said shipment were forged, thus:On 3 September 1996 reconsideration was denied.[17]
FRAUD - the following cases herein enumerated demonstrate the presence of fraud: 1.a. The use of forged or spurious documents x x x x (Section 1, CMO-87-92).[16]
Sec. 2530. Property Subject to Forfeiture Under Tariff and Customs Law. - Any vehicle, vessel or aircraft, cargo, article and other objects shall, under the following conditions be subject to forfeiture x x x xFrom the decision of the District Collector of Customs decreeing forfeiture, petitioner Transglobe International, Inc., filed a petition for redemption pursuant to Sec. 2307 of the Tariff and Customs Code as amended by Sec. 1 of E. O. No. 38[20] which states -
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 x x x x
m. Any article sought to be imported or exported x x x x
(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 article was entered through a customhouse to the prejudice of the government.
Sec. 2307. Settlement of Case by Payment of Fine or Redemption of Forfeited Property. - Subject to 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, exporter, importer 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 (underscoring supplied) x x x x Settlement of any seizure case by payment of the fine or redemption of forfeited property shall not be allowed in any case where the importation is absolutely prohibited or where the release of the property would be contrary to law.As a means of settlement, redemption of forfeited property is unavailing in three (3) instances, namely, when there is fraud, where the importation is absolutely prohibited, or where the release of the property would be contrary to law. Respondent Commissioner of Customs disallowed the redemption on the ground of fraud which consisted of the following: "The shipment was made to appear to be an innocuous consolidation shipment destined for stripping at an outside CY-CFS in order to conceal the textile fabrics; the eight (8) co-loaders/consignees of the shipment are all fictitious; and, under Section 3B, CMO 87-92, offers of redemption shall be denied when the seized shipment is consigned to a fictitious consignee."[21] Respondent court sustained this ruling which it considered based on undisputed findings of the EIIB.
x x x x First x x x x the shipment was not destined for stripping. It was then being transported to a CY-CFS operator where it would be examined by a customs appraiser who would determine the proper taxes and duties to be paid on the shipment. Second x x x x the petitioner is a legitimate corporation registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission in accordance with the laws of the Philippines x x x x[22]On petitioner's second motion for reconsideration, District Collector Rosqueta was silent on the first claim but upheld the second claim. According to her, petitioner is a juridical person duly organized in accordance with the laws of the Philippines and is qualified as a consignee; it is not fictitious as evidenced by its Articles of Incorporation registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission.[23] Despite these, respondent Commissioner of Customs maintained his denial of the redemption based on his previous unsubstantiated findings. It is settled that findings of fact of an administrative agency must be respected so long as they are supported by substantial evidence[24] or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[25] Lacking support, the factual findings of respondent Commissioner of Customs cannot stand on their own and therefore not binding on the courts.
Section 2307 of the Tariff and Customs Code provides:Under the foregoing provision, redemption is not allowed in three instances: (1) when there is fraud; (2) when the importation is absolutely prohibited; and (3) when the surrender of the property to the person offering the redemption would be contrary to law.
"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, 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, exporter, importer or consignee or his agent shall offer to pay for the domestic value of the seized article. The Commissioner may accept the settlement of any seizure case on appeal in the same manner.x x x
"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 the same would be contrary to law."
These were not refuted, and therefore deemed admitted, by petitioner. The EIIB this concluded that the shipment was made to appear to be an innocuous consolidation shipment destined for stripping at an outside Customs Yard-Customs Freight Services in order to conceal the textile fabrics. These falsities constitute fraud as defined in Section 1 of Customs memorandum Order No. 87-92, thus:
1. The 40-foot van was made to appear as consolidation shipment consisting of 232 packages with Translink International Freight Forwarder as shipper and Transglobe International, Inc. as consignee;
2. There were eight (8) shippers and eight (8) consignees declared as co-loaders and co-owners of the contents of the van, when in truth the entire shipment belonged to only one consignee, petitioner Transglobe International, Inc. The other consignees were fictitious.3. Not one of the items declared as the contents of the van, i.e., various hand tools, water cooling, tower G-clamps compressors, bright roping wire and knitting machines was found in the van. Instead, the van was fully stuffed with textile goods.
FRAUD - the following cases herein enumerated demonstrate the presence of fraud:Thus, under the circumstances, petitioner may not be allowed to redeem the seized goods under Section 2307 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
1.a. the use of forged or spurious documents;
1.b. prima facie evidence of fraud under Section 2503 of the TCCP on undervaluation, misclassification, and misdeclaration in entry;1.c. the use of false machinations, misrepresentation, concealment of facts that resulted in loss of revenues reaching levels that is unconscionable and unbecoming of a law-abiding taxpayer and citizen;1.d. other cases similarly situated.