This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-01-31 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| As regards the jurisdiction of the CTA, the CA was clearly in error when it issued an injunction against it from deciding the forfeiture case on the basis that it interfered with the subject of ownership over the vessel which was, according to the CA, beyond the jurisdiction of the CTA. Firstly, the execution of the Decision against the vessel and cargo, as aforesaid, was a nullity and therefore the sale of the vessel was invalid. Without a valid certificate of sale, there can be no claim of ownership which Urbino can present against the Government. Secondly, as previously stated, allegations of ownership neither divest the Collector of Customs of such jurisdiction nor confer upon the trial court jurisdiction over the case. Ownership of goods or the legality of its acquisition can be raised as defenses in a seizure proceeding.[20] The actions of the Collectors of Customs are appealable to the Commissioner of Customs, whose decision, in turn, is subject to the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the CTA.[21] Clearly, issues of ownership over goods in the custody of custom officials are within the power of the CTA to determine. | |||||
|
2000-10-24 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| render effective and efficient the collection of import and export duties due the State, which enables the government to carry out the functions it has been instituted to perform. Even if the seizure by the Collector of Customs were illegal, which has yet to be proven, we have said that such act does not deprive the Bureau of Customs of jurisdiction thereon.'"[12] (citations omitted.) Clearly, respondent had | |||||