Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

JAO V CA October 6, 1995 Monday, January 26, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests, Taxation Facts:

The Bureau of Customs received information regarding the presence of allegedly untaxed vehicles and parts in the premises owned by a certain Pat Hao in Paraaque and Makati. After conducting surveillance, a recommendation of the issuance of warrants of seizure and detention articles was made. On the strength of the amended warrants; customs personnel started hauling the articles and this prompted petitioners to file a case of injunction before the Makati RTC, which issued the TRO. Upon review, CA set aside orders of the trial court and dismissed the civil case. Hence, this petition. Issue: Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction over the case. Held: There is no question that RTCs are devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity/regularity of seizure and forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Bureau of customs and to enjoin an otherwise interfere with these proceedings.

The collector of customs sitting in seizure and forfeiture proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all questions touching on the seizure and forfeiture of dutiable goods. The regional trial courts are precluded from assuming cognizance over such matters even through petitioners for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. TRANSGLOBE INTERNATIONAL, INC. V CA January 25, 1999 Monday, January 26, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes Labels: Case Digests, Taxation

Facts: A shipment from Hong Kong arrived at the port of Manila, aboard the S/S Seadragon. Its inward foreign manifest indicated that it contained various hand tools. Acting on an information that the shipment violated provisions of tariff and customs code, the Economic Intelligence and Investigation Bureau (EIIB) agents seized the shipment while in transit to the container yard. The EIIB recommended seizure of the shipment, and for which a warrant of seizure and distraint was issued by the District Collector. For failure of petitioner, to appear during the hearing despite due notice, collector decreed the forfeiture of the shipment in favor of the government. Issue: Whether or not Transglobe is allowed to redeem the forfeited shipments.

Held: As a means of settlement under Sec. 2307, TCC, redemption of forfeited property is unavailing in 3 instances: 1. Where there is fraud; 2. Where the importation is absolutely prohibited; 3. Where the release of the property is contrary to law. The fraud contemplated by law must be actual and not constructive. It must be intentional, consisting of deception willfully and deliberately done or resorted to in order to induce another to give up same right.