TAX CASE MV Don Martin vs. Secretary of Finance

M/V "DON MARTIN" VOY 047 vs. SECRETARY OF FINANCE

G.R. No. 160206 July 15, 2015 DOCTRINE

 The burden of proof to show that a vessel and its ar!o are sub"et to forfeiture and sei#ure for violation of the Tari$ and %usto&s %ode fall upon the party alle!in! that suh were were s&u!!led s&u!!led !oods. !oods. 'bsent 'bsent substanti substantial al evidene evidene to disprove disprove dou&entar dou&entary y evidene evidene sub&itted by the vessel owner there an be no forfeiture and sei#ure. sei#ure. (nonlusive evidene pertainin! to the len!th of the !rain of rie annot overo&e dou&entary evidene that show that said rie were produed, &illed, and a)uired loally. FACTS

*etitio etitioner ner *alai *alaio o +hipp +hippin! in! (n. (n. was was the owner of - /on artin artin,, a vesse vessell of  *hilippine re!istry re!istry en!a!ed in oastwise trade. The vessel doed at the port of %a!ayan de ro %ity with its ar!o of 6,500 sas of rie onsi!ned to petitioner eopoldo 3Juniors4 *a&ula *a&ulala lain in a day after its ar!o was loaded in +ablayan +ablayan,, ident idental al indoro indoro.. (t was apprehended and sei#ed by the ono&i (ntelli!ene and (nvesti!ation ureau 7(8 after reeivi reeivin! n! intelli! intelli!ene ene that the ar!o ar!o was s&u!!led. s&u!!led. Thereaf Thereafter, ter, the /istrit /istrit %olletor %olletor of  %usto&s in %a!ayan de ro %ity issued a warrant warrant of sei#ure sei#ure and detention pursuant to 2901 of the Tari$ and %usto&s %ode of the *hilippines. *hilippines . *etitioner ontended that the vessel was a o&&on o&&on arr arrier ier and that that the ar!o ar!o was loal loally ly produ produed ed and suppor supported ted by sever several al dou&ents. :owever, the /istrit %olletor of %usto&s rendered rulin! that in the absene of a showin! of lawful entry into the ountry, the ar!o were of forei!n ori!in and thus sub"e sub"ett to sei#u sei#ure re and forfei forfeitur ture e for viola violatio tion n of the Tari$ ari$ and %usto& %usto&s s %ode %ode of the *hilippines. The !rains were unusually lon! and that so&e white sas were &ared with *re&iu& *re&iu& Rie whih is for yellow olor sas. (t onluded that the dou&ents presented by petitioner were a strate!y to oneal the true nature and ori!in of the ar!oes. ISSUES

;hether or not the %T' had "urisdition on the forfeiture of the ar!o and of the vessel ;hether or not the sas of rie were unlawfully i&ported HELD