Wednesday, March 05, 2008 Speak Out: Wrecking seized luxury vehicles By Ernesto A. Elizondo Former city councilor
WITH seizures of smuggled luxury cars, customs authorities should not repeat the criminal act of destroying the seized items.
Contrary to the opinion of some people, smuggled luxury cars are not contraband. The Tariff and Customs Code or TCC (Rep. Act No. 1937, as amended), defines contraband as “articles of prohibited importation or exportation” (Sec. 2509). Section 102 of the same code enumerates these articles, and luxury cars are not included.
On the contrary, in Schedule XVII, Chapter 87, specifically under 87.02, of the same code, an ad valorem import duty is imposed on motor vehicles, including sports motor vehicles. This imposition is an acknowledgement that the importation of luxury cars is not prohibited.
Obviously, the luxury cars were seized because the required customs duties, taxes or charges were not paid. After seizure, they become properties in customs custody.
Properties in customs custody are subject to sale (Sec. 2601) and should be sold at public auction pursuant to Sections 2602 and 2603 of TCC. The proceeds are to be disposed of in accordance with Section 2605 thereof.
But even assuming for the sake of argument that luxury cars are contraband, the widely publicized destruction of those seized in Subic was absolutely without any legal basis. Section 2609 of the TCC specifically provides for the disposition of contraband.
Destruction of contraband under Section 2609 is only allowed if it “is highly dangerous to be kept or handled” or if the contraband “is unfit for use” or “the Collector is of the opinion that, if sold, it would be used for unlawful purpose.” None of these circumstances was present or shown to exist when the luxury cars were destroyed.
Moreover, it is only the Customs collector who is authorized by Section 2609 to direct the destruction of contraband if he is of the opinion that, if sold, it would be used for unlawful purposes. The secretary of Finance and the Customs commissioner do not have that authority.
One final point.
TCC provides that “any person who violates a provision of this Code or regulation pursuant thereto, for which no specific penalty is provided, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand pesos or by imprisonment of not more than one year, or both…; and if the offender is a public official or employee, he shall suffer disqualification to hold public once, to vote and participate in any public election for ten years” (Sec. 3610).
It would be very interesting to see how the Ombudsman will treat the obvious criminal violation of the law by public officials, a violation covered by media when it was committed in Subic not so long ago.
