Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the decision of the respondent in Customs Case No. 94-017, dated August 25, 1995, affirming the decision of the MICP Collector, dated September 5, 1994, which decreed the forfeiture of the subject shipments in favor of the government, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent is hereby ORDERED to effect the immediate RELEASE of the subject shipment goods in favor of the petitioner.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the decision of the respondent in Customs Case No. 94-017, dated August 25, 1995, affirming the decision of the MICP Collector, dated September 5, 1994, which decreed the forfeiture of the subject shipments in favor of the government, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Respondent is hereby ORDERED to effect the immediate RELEASE of the subject shipment goods in favor of the petitioner. No costs. [1] (Underscoring supplied) Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals and then to this Court. In both instances, the decision of the CTA was affirmed. This Court's Decision of October 2, 2001 attained finality on February 5, 2002. [2] On October 16, 2000, the Second Division of the CTA issued a writ of execution [3] directing respondent to effect the immediate release of the shipment to petitioner. The writ was not implemented, however. Petitioner thus filed before the CTA a motion [4] for respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt for defying the writ of execution. In his Explanation with Motion for Clarification, [5] respondent sought guidance from the CTA since the writ of execution could no longer be carried out due to the "loss" of the shipment. On April 14, 2004, petitioner filed before the CTA a motion to set case for hearing [6] to determine (1) whether petitioner's shipment was actually lost, and if so, the cause and/or circumstances attendant thereto; and (2) the amount respondent should pay petitioner should the shipment be found to have been actually lost. [7] By Resolution [8] of May 17, 2005, the CTA found respondent liable for the loss of the shipment and ordered him to pay US$160,348.08. The dispositive portion of the resolution reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Bureau of Customs is adjudged liable to petitioner AGFHA, INC. for the value of the subject shipment in the amount of ONE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT AND 08/100 US DOLLARS (US$160,348.08). The Bureau of Custom's liability may be paid in Philippine Currency, computed at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of actual payment, with legal interests thereon at the rate of 6% per annum computed from February 1993 up to the finality of this Resolution. In lieu of the 6% interest, the rate of legal interest shall be 12% per annum upon finality of this Resolution until the value of the subject shipment is fully paid. The payment shall be taken from the sale or sales of the goods or properties which were seized or forfeited by the Bureau of Customs in other cases. SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 126634 - TRANSGLOBE INTERNATIONAL, INC., VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. No. 126634 -
CaseG.R. Nos. 166309-10 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, VS. UNIMEX MICRO-ELECTRONICS GMBH.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
G.R. Nos. 166309-10 -
CaseG.R. No. 139050 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, VS. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND AGFHA,INCORPORATED.
G.R. No. 139050 -