Title
Source: Supreme Court
Commissioner of Customs vs. Gold Mark Sea Carriers, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. 208318
Decision Date
Jun 30, 2021
A barge carrying used oil was detained for illegal importation; Supreme Court ruled it forfeitable under customs law, rejecting common carrier exemption due to charter agreement.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 208318)

Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs and Undersecretary of the Department of Finance

Respondent

Gold Mark Sea Carriers, Inc. (owner of barge “Cheryl Ann”)

Key Dates

– August 23, 2006: Barge towed into Surigao for emergency bunkering.
– December 18, 2006: District Collector orders release of barge and tug.
– April 13, 2007: Customs Commissioner issues Disposition Form recommending forfeiture of barge.
– May 2007: Undersecretary Mendoza and Commissioner Morales indorse forfeiture.
– February 17, 2011: CTA Third Division orders release of barge.
– December 20, 2012: CTA En Banc affirms release.
– June 30, 2021: Supreme Court decision reversing CTA En Banc.

Applicable Law

– 1987 Philippine Constitution (post-1990 decision)
– Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP), Sections 1202 and 2530, as amended
– Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Nuclear Wastes Control Act of 1990)

Issue

Whether the CTA En Banc erred in ruling that the barge “Cheryl Ann” was not subject to forfeiture for illegal importation of used oil.

Facts

  1. OSM Shipping towed the foreign-loaded barge containing used oil from Palau to Surigao and sought clearance to proceed to Manila.
  2. Philippine Coast Guard, on Customs authority, seized barge and tug for carrying used oil without import permits.
  3. Gold Mark did not participate in seizure proceedings; OSM presented evidence.

Procedural History

– District Collector: Ordered release of both vessels for lack of basis.
– Customs Commissioner and DOF Undersecretary: Recommended and indorsed continued detention and forfeiture of the barge.
– CTA Third Division: Granted Gold Mark’s petition, ordering immediate release of the barge as an accessory to the released tug.
– CTA En Banc: Affirmed release, finding the barge a common carrier exempt from forfeiture and barred the government’s RA 6969 theory as belated.

Findings of the Court of Tax Appeals

– Barge served as accessory to the tug and shared in its exemption from forfeiture (accessory follows principal).
– Time-charter did not convert the barge into a private carrier; it remained a common carrier exempt under TCCP.
– Government’s invocation of RA 6969 for hazardous cargo was raised too late and thus barred.

Ruling on Petition

Supreme Court holds that CTA En Banc disregarded substantial evidence showing clear intent to import used oil into the Philippines without permits, warranting forfeiture under the 1987 Constitution and the TCCP.

Legal Analysis

  1. Section 1202 TCCP defines importation as beginning upon entry with intent to unload; intent is inferred from agreements and permits.
  2. Charter Agreement and MARINA special permit unambiguously specify discharge point as “Philippines” or “Manila.”
  3. Substantial evidence standard met: barge entered jurisdiction with used oil, lacking import clearance—constitutes prima facie illegal importation.
  4. Section 2530(a) & (k) TCCP provide for forfeiture of any vessel used to transport contraband unless it is a common carrier that is not chartered or leased.
  5. Barge was under a time charter; TCCP’s proviso unambiguously excludes chartered vessels from the common-carrier exemption


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.