G.R. No. L-19259 September 23, 1966
General Travel Service, Ltd., petitioner and appellant, vs. Edilberto Y. David, personally and as Collector of Customs of the Manila International Airport, respondent and appellee.

FACTS

On August 25, 1961, eight packages owned by petitioner General Travel Service, Ltd., a Hongkong-based limited partnership, arrived at the Manila International Airport via SAS and KLM planes from Bangkok. The respondent Collector of Customs ordered the unloading of the packages over the objection of airline representatives, who claimed the packages were mistakenly brought to the Philippines and requested their return to the airport of origin. Petitioner, through counsel, requested immediate reshipment, arguing the packages were not imported but erroneously brought in. The Collector proceeded, and the packages were opened and inspected, revealing they contained highly dutiable articles (e.g., transistors, sweaters, watches) in commercial quantities, contrary to the “frozen goods” declaration in the cargo manifests and air waybills. Seizure proceedings were instituted for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code and Central Bank circulars. The Collector’s answer also challenged petitioner’s legal capacity to sue, as the air waybills listed different consignees and shippers in Manila and Hongkong. The owners of the packages (T.H. Leung, David Todd, Peferlia Roberts, and R.B. Henson) later moved to substitute themselves as petitioners. The Court of First Instance of Rizal denied the motion for amendment and dismissed the petition for prohibition and mandamus.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Collector of Customs acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering the seizure and forfeiture of the packages, which hinges on whether the packages were imported into the Philippines within the meaning of the Customs Laws.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the Collector of Customs did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The packages were deemed imported into the Philippines under Section 1202 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as they arrived with cargo manifests and air waybills indicating Manila as the destination. The Collector had the authority and duty to seize and forfeit the packages upon finding a false declaration (the packages contained dutiable articles not specified in the documents). The notice of wrong shipment from airline representatives did not negate the objective evidence of importation. The proper remedy for the petitioner was to appeal to the Commissioner of Customs and then to the Court of Tax Appeals, not to file a petition for prohibition or mandamus with the Court of First Instance, as the Tax Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over such seizure cases. The motion for amendment to substitute petitioners was correctly denied.