REPUBLIC vs. CFI MANILA and MAYER STEEL PIPE CORP.

Citation:  G.R. No. 43747; September 2, 1992; Ponente:  Nocon

Doctrine:  Application of the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction – The question of forfeiture of the properties sought to be imported is for the Collector of Customs to determine and then by the Commissioner of Customs.  Thereafter, appeals must be brought to the Court of Tax Appeals.

FACTS:

In November 13, 1975, the CFI of Manila issued an injunction enjoining the Collector of Customs (Collector) from enforcing an order to seize some packages of machinery from the Private Respondent, Mayer Steel Pipe Corporation. 

The complaint with the CFI alleged the lack of due process in the proceedings leading to the order.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CFI has the jurisdiction to issue an injunction over the order of the Collector.

HELD:

The mandate of the law is very specific.  Section 2312 of the Tariff and Customs Code provides:

"SEC. 2312. Decision or Action by Collector in Protest And Seizure Cases. — When a protest in proper form is presented in a case where protest is required, the Collector shall issue an order for hearing within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the protest and hear the matter thus presented. Upon the termination of the hearing, the Collector shall render a decision within thirty (30) days, and if the protest is sustained, in whole or in part, he shall make the appropriate order, the entry reliquidated if necessary."

On the other hand, Section 2313 of the same law states:

Review by Commissioner. — The person aggrieved by the decision or action of the Collector in any matter presented upon protest or by his action in any case of seizure may, within fifteen (15) days after notification in writing by the Collector of his action or decision, give written notice to the Collector and one copy furnished to the Commissioner of his desire to have the matter reviewed by the Commissioner. Thereupon the Collector shall forthwith transmit all the records of the proceedings to the Commissioner, who shall approve, modify or reverse the action or decision of the collector and take such steps and make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to his decision.

Section 7 of R.A. No. 1125 (An Act Creating the Court of Tax Appeals) also provides:

Jurisdiction — The Court of Tax Appeals shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review by appeal, as herein provided —

x       x       x

(2) Decisions of the Commissioner of Customs in cases involving liability for customs duties, fees or other money charges; seizure, detention or release of property affected: fines forfeitures or other penalties imposed in relation thereto; or other matters arising under the Customs Law or other law or part of the law administered by the Bureau of Customs.

Clearly then, the question of seizure and forfeiture is for the Collector of Customs to determine in the first instance and then the Commissioner of Customs. This is a field where the doctrine of primary jurisdiction controls. Thereafter an appeal may be taken to the Court of Tax Appeals. A court of first instance is thus devoid of competence to act on the matter.

Lastly, in the case of Enrile vs. Vinuya, it was held that “the prevailing doctrine is that the exclusive jurisdiction in seizure and forfeiture cases vested in the Collector of Customs precludes a court of first instance from assuming cognizance over such a matter.”

As regards to the allegation that there was violation of due process, the Court noted that there was a hearing with 6 witnesses and for the purposes of administrative proceedings.

Wherefore, the order of injunction issued by the CFI of Manila was annulled.