Commissioner of Customs v.

Navarro
No. L-33146, May 31, 1977
FACTS
Private respondents Juanito S. Flores and Asiatic Incorporated are importers
of 1,350 cartons of fresh fruits which importation was seized by the Bureau
of Customs on November 4, 1966. Said importation was classified as nonessential consumer commodities, they are banned by Central Bank Circulars
Nos. 289,294 and 295 as prohibited importation or importation contrary to
law and made subject to forfeiture proceedings by Petitioner Bureau of
Customs. It was only on January 12, 1967 that the warrant of seizure and
detention was issued. The respondents contend that the issuance of warrant
was only an attempt to divest the respondent Judge of jurisdiction over the
subject matter on the case. On March 7, 1967 respondent Judge Pedro S.
Navarro issued an order for the release of the articles in question, thus
preventing Bureau of customs from proceeding with the auction sale.
ISSUE
Whether or not respondent court acquires jurisdiction over seizure and
forfeiture cases for violation of the Tariff and Customs Code.
HELD
No, the question of seizure and forfeiture is for the administrative in the first
instance and then the commissioner of Customs. This is the 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. There is further judicial review, but only by
the Supreme Court in the exercise of its certiorari decision. Consequently, a
Collector of Customs when sitting in forfeiture proceedings constitute a
tribunal upon which the law expressly confers jurisdiction to hear and
determine all questions touching the forfeiture and further disposition of
subject matter of such proceedings.