GR 94262; (May, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 94262 ; May 31, 1991
FEEDER INTERNATIONAL LINE, PTE., LTD., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, and COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondents.
FACTS
The foreign vessel M/T “ULU WAI,” owned by petitioner, left Singapore for Zamboanga, Philippines, carrying 2,100 metric tons of oil products. On May 14, 1986, it anchored at Guiuanon Island, Iloilo, without notifying local customs authorities. Its presence was discovered via a civilian informant. A customs team boarded the vessel on May 19, 1986, and found it lacked required ship and shipping documents, possessing only a Singapore port clearance for Zamboanga. Consequently, the vessel and its cargo were seized, and forfeiture proceedings were initiated.
The District Collector of Customs ordered the forfeiture of the vessel and cargo for violations of the Tariff and Customs Code. This decision was affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs and subsequently by the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court, which referred it to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the CTA’s decision, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the forfeiture of the vessel M/T “ULU WAI” and its cargo for violations of the Tariff and Customs Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the forfeiture. The legal logic rests on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the customs authorities, which petitioner failed to rebut. The vessel was found within customs territory without the necessary documents and without proper entry or notice to customs officials, constituting a violation under Section 2530 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
Petitioner’s argument that sworn statements from the ship’s master and owner’s representative were inadmissible for being taken without counsel was rejected. The right to counsel, as invoked, is imperative in criminal proceedings but not in administrative forfeiture cases. The Court held that the assistance of lawyers, while desirable, is not indispensable in such proceedings. Petitioner did not present these individuals to refute their statements nor prove the statements were taken under coercive circumstances. Consequently, the statements remained valid evidence of the vessel’s unauthorized presence and lack of documents, solidifying the basis for forfeiture.