FELICIDAD VIERNEZA, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent.
FACTS
On September 16, 1957, the M/V “Legaspi” docked at Cebu from Jolo. Acting on a tip about smuggled cigarettes, Customs authorities in Cebu searched the vessel and discovered 760 cartons of Chesterfield and Camel cigarettes with blue seals but without the required Internal Revenue strip stamps. The merchandise was covered by a Bill of Lading declaring it as “personal belongings,” consigned from Sultan Pula of Jolo to Carlos Valdez in Manila. Petitioner Felicidad Vierneza, a passenger holding the bill of lading, initially disclaimed ownership under oath. The Collector of Customs of Cebu seized the cigarettes and instituted forfeiture proceedings for violations of the Tariff and Customs Code and the Internal Revenue Code. The Collector ordered forfeiture, a decision affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs (modifying the specific legal provision) and later by the Court of Tax Appeals. Petitioner, claiming she merely purchased the cigarettes in the open market in Jolo, appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Collector of Customs of Cebu had jurisdiction to institute seizure and forfeiture proceedings.
2. Whether the cigarettes are liable to forfeiture under Section 2530(f) of the Tariff and Customs Code.
3. Whether the cigarettes can be forfeited for violation of a provision of law (Section 2530(m-1)) not originally cited by the Collector of Customs.
RULING
1. YES, the Collector of Customs of Cebu had jurisdiction. The Tariff and Customs Code empowers the Bureau of Customs to prevent smuggling over all areas within its jurisdiction. A Collector is authorized to search and seize property subject to forfeiture at any place within the Bureau’s jurisdiction, not limited to his own collection district. Jurisdiction to proceed in rem against the seized cigarettes is vested in the court of the district where the property is found.
2. YES, the cigarettes are liable to forfeiture. The absence of internal revenue strip stamps and the presence of blue seals indicate they are foreign products. Their presence in the Philippines without the required stamps constitutes them as merchandise of prohibited importation, the importation of which is contrary to law, justifying forfeiture under Section 2530(f). Petitioner, who bought, concealed, and transported the cigarettes, is charged with knowledge of their illegal importation, as evidenced by her concealment and initial denial of ownership, making the cigarettes forfeitable while in her control under Section 2531.
3. YES, forfeiture under a provision not originally cited is valid. The appellate power of the Commissioner of Customs is not limited to reviewing only the issues raised on appeal; he may modify the decision based on other questions supported by evidence. What is essential is that the goods are, in fact, subject to forfeiture by law, not the specific designation of the violated section in the original charge.
