12/23/20081:39 PM

ASSIGNS IN TARIFFS & CUSTOMS CODE & CTA LAW

A. Texts of Vitug & Acosta & Hector De Leons The Fundamentals of Taxation, 2004 edition B. Tariff & ustoms ode, !ections "00, "0", "0#, "0$, 20" to 20#, 40", $02, $0%, $04, "20" to C. D. E. 1. 2. 3.
"2"", "#0&, "$0" to "$04, "'0"("'0&, "&0"("&02, 220" to 22"2, 2%0"(2%"$, 240"(2402, 2#0%, 2#%0(2#%%, 2#%#, 2#%$, %#0" to %#0%, %#"" to %#"2, %#"), %$0"(%$02 *A &'#" + ounter(,eiling Dut-, *A &'#2 + Anti(Dum.ing Act, *A &"&" + Transaction Value, *A &&00 !afeguard /easures Act *A ""2#, as amended 0- *A )2&2 + The ourt of Tax A..eals and its *ules of ourt ases1 Illuh Asaali v. Commissioner o Cus!oms" De# $%" $&%'" (% SCRA )'( 2 Doctrine of 3nternational La4 that allo4s a state to .rotect itself from in5ur- not onl- 4ithin its territorial 5urisdiction 0ut also in the high seas2 *eo+le v Ma,o -uven#i!o .uno v -u/,e Arnul o Ca0re/o AM RT- 1)2$33&" A+r )1" (11) + 6udge 4as castigated for issuing T*7 o,er sei8ure and forfeiture of 0ags of rice 0- 97 2 ! held 97 has exclusi,e 5urisdiction o,er these cases2 !imilar holding 4as made in *V /ar8an Freight , A and !heilas /fg 3nc2 "2&0$4 /ar 4, 2004 re declaration of legalit- of a0andonment .roceedings *eo+le v. Lo 4o $)5 SCRA $(( 6$&&$: + 4arrantless search and sei8ure of mo,ing ,ehicles Mari0el -ar/ele7a v *eo+le GR $%5(%5 Fe0 %" (11% + ;nder 4hat section of the T does a smuggler of 5e4elr- criminall- lia0le2 Nasia/ & Lo7a/a v. CTA %$ SCRA ()' 8 or.orate officers sued in their indi,idual ca.acitcannot in,o<e the constitutional .rotection against 4arrantless search and sei8ure that is a,aila0le to cor.oration Ri,or vs. Rosales" $$3 SCRA 3'1 + .o4er of the collector of customs to enforce customs la4s in e,er- .ort =acis , =amaran, #$ ! *A "$ + Authorit- of the ol of ustoms to issue >arrant of !ei8ure and Detention2 *ieta , =eo.le, 4%$ ! *A 2'% ?2004: ( ;nder the tariff and ustoms ode, a search, sei8ure and arrest ma- 0e made e,en 4ithout a 4arrant to .ur.oses of enforcing customs and tariff la4s2 Commissioner o Cus!oms v Mil9au:ee In/us!ries Cor+. ;;5 SCRA %1; 6(11;< ( >here the transfer of a shi.ment 4as made under s.ecific instruction that the shi.ment should 0e @under continuous guardingA 0- the ustoms guard @until released 0- the ustoms authoritiesA, the .h-sical and legal custod- o,er the shi.ment remained 4ith the ustoms authorities2 Acce.tance 0- the 9ureau of ustoms of the im.orters .a-ment of the customs duties and taxes on the shi.ment legall- terminates the im.ortation of goods or articles2 The ustoms ommissioners order of release u.on .a-ment of taxes and duties on the shi.ment, indicated in a notation made 0- his !.ecial Assistant, is a sufficient legal .ermit for the official release of the shi.ment2 Commissioner o Cus!oms v *hili++ine *hos+ha!e Fer!ili7er Cor+. ;)3 SCRA ;5( 6(11;< ( 3t is the .resence of tangi0le tax 0enefits attached to these 8ones, 4hich ma<e them ,ia0le as in,estment locations, areas 4hich ordinaril- 4ould 0e o,erloo<ed2 The incenti,e gi,en under !ec "'?": is 0roader than a mere tax exem.tion2 There can 0e no dou0t that the additional incenti,es under !ec "& are se.arate and distinct from those under the .receding section2 !ec "'?": is determinati,e o the fundamental Buestion 4hether there is legal 0asis for the claim of exem.tion2 7n the .ractical side, the tax.a-er to 4hom the tax is refunded 4ould ha,e the o.tion among others to in,est for .rofit the returned sum, an o.tion not .roximatel- a,aila0le if the tax.a-er chooses instead to recei,e a tax credit2

4.
#2

6. 7. 8.
)2 "02

""2

12. Sou!hern Cross Cemen! Cor+ v *hil Cemen! Manu a#!urers Asso#ia!ion" Se# Tra/e &
In/us!r=" Finan#e an/ >OC GR$5'5;1 -ul '" (11; + Held TA has 5urisdiction o,er cases 4ere safeguards are to 0e im.osed or there is none2 Also, !ec of Trade & 3ndustr- 4ill onl- a..lgeneral safeguard measure u.on .ositi,e formal determination 0- Tariff ommission2 Cegati,e determination of T 0inds the !ec of DT32 NESTLE *4ILI**INES" INC." 6FORMERL? FILI*RO" INC.< +e!i!ioner" vs. 4ONORA>LE COURT OF A**EALS" COURT OF TA@ A**EALS an/ COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS" res+on/en!s. G.R. No. $);$$;. -ul= %" (11$.A + =rotests ,s ,aluation, .rescri.tion, claim for refund2 This is a claim for refund of customs duties arising from alleged erroneous ,aluation of im.orted mil<2 After .a-ment of D and A!T, Cestle filed a claim for refund 4ith the ollector of ustoms, 4ho had not acted on it for almost $ -ears and 0efore the la.se of $ -ears .rescri.ti,e .eriod under the i,il ode for !olutio 3nde0iti, Cestle 4ent to TA doc<eted as ase Co2 44'&2 Another refund claim 4as filed 4ith the 93* 4ith res.ect to A!T and then 0efore the 2(-ear .eriod ex.ired under the C3* , Cestle 4ent to the TA ? ase Co2 4""4:, 4ho found for Cestle2 3n 44'&, TA dismissed the case for lac< of 5urisdiction and 4as affirmed 0- A ratiocinating that TA does not ha,e concurrent 5urisdiction 4ith omm of ustomsD in action of ol of ustoms 4as not an exce.tion to the .rinci.le of exhaustion of admin remediesD TA decision in 4""4 4as 0inding controlling on 44'&D and Cestle has to .ro,e its claims2 Held1 !olutio 3nde0iti is not a..lica0le since it is not -et esta0lished 4hether indeed Cestle has o,er.aid, des.ite the ruling in 4""42 There is .resum.tion of regularit-D T .ro,ides the .rocedures on .rotesting and claiming refund, i2e2,, file claim 4ith 7 4ithin "# da-s from .a-ment or liBuidation, then a..eal to omm of ustoms, then 4ithin %0 da-s a..eal to TA2 !ince ol of ustoms had not acted on it -et, a..eal to TA 4as not .ro.er2 And 0ased on these rules, exhaustion of admin remedies does not a..l- either2 The fact that in 4""4, TA a..ro,ed the refund of A!T is not controlling2 9ecause of the long dela- in 97 , to 0e fair 0oth the 7!E and A said that the case 0e remanded to TA for trial, the same 4as remanded to TA2 Commissioner o Cus!oms v CA" e! al" GR $$$(1(215 -an )$" (11% + 6urisdiction on customs cases2 The facts in this case are li<e those in that case2 ;r0ino claimed to 0e the o4ner of the ,essel and he sought to restrain the ==A and the 9ureau of ustoms from interfering 4ith his rights as o4ner2 His remed-, therefore, 4as not 4ith the *T 0ut 4ith the TA 4here the sei8ure and detention cases are no4 .ending and 4here he 4as alread- allo4ed to inter,ene2 /oreo,er, this ourt, on numerous occasions, cautioned 5udges in their issuance of tem.orar- restraining orders and 4rits of .reliminar- in5unction against the ollector of ustoms 0ased on the .rinci.le enunciated in Mison v. Natividad and has issued Administrati,e ircular Co2 '()) to carr- out this .olic-2 This ourt again reminds all concerned that the rule is clear1 the ollector of ustoms has exclusi,e 5urisdiction o,er sei8ure and forfeiture .roceedings and trial courts are .recluded from assuming cogni8ance o,er such matters e,en through .etitions for certiorari, .rohi0ition or mandamus2 Cote1 3n filing the case, ;r0ino had im.leaded the ,essel as a defendant to enforce his alleged maritime lien2 This meant that he 0rought an action in rem under the ode of ommerce under 4hich the ,essel ma- 0e attached and sold2 Ho4e,er, the 0asic o.erati,e fact for the institution and .erfection of .roceedings in rem is the actual or constructi,e .ossession of the res 0- the tri0unal em.o4ered 0- la4 to conduct the .roceedings2 This means that to acBuire 5urisdiction o,er the ,essel, as a defendant, the trial court must ha,e o0tained either actual or constructi,e .ossession o,er it2 Ceither 4as accom.lished 0- the *T of /anila2 3n his comment to the .etition, ;r0ino .lainl- stated that @.etitioner has actualFsicG .h-sical custod- not onl- of the goods andHor cargo 0ut the su05ect ,essel, /HV !tar Ace, as 4ell2 This is clearl- an admission that the *T of /anila did not ha,e 5urisdiction o,er the res2 >hile ;r0ino contends that the ommissioner of ustoms custod- 4as illegal, such fact, e,en if true, does not de.ri,e the ommissioner of ustoms of 5urisdiction thereon2 This is a Buestion that ought to 0e resol,ed in the sei8ure and forfeiture cases, 4hich are no4 .ending 4ith the TA, and not 0- the regular courts as a collateral matter to enforce his lien2 9- sim.l- filing a case in rem against the ,essel, des.ite its 0eing in the custod- of customs officials, ;r0ino has circum,ented the rule that regular trial courts are de,oid of an- com.etence to .ass u.on the ,alidit- or regularit- of sei8ure and forfeiture .roceedings conducted in the 9ureau of ustoms, on his mere assertion that the administrati,e .roceedings 4ere a nullit-2 7n the other hand, the 9ureau of ustoms had

13.

14.

15. 16. 17.

18.

acBuired 5urisdiction o,er the res ahead and to the exclusion of the *T of /anila2 The forfeiture .roceedings conducted 0- the 9ureau of ustoms are in the nature of .roceedings in rem. and 5urisdiction 4as o0tained from the moment the ,essel entered the !FL; .ort2 /oreo,er, there is no Buestion that forfeiture .roceedings 4ere instituted and the ,essel 4as sei8ed e,en 0efore the filing of the *T of /anila case2 And to remo,e further dou0ts that the forfeiture case ta<es .recedence o,er the *T of /anila case, it should 0e noted that forfeiture retroacts to the date of the commission of the offense, in this case the da- the ,essel entered the countr-2 A maritime lien, in contrast, relates 0ac< to the .eriod 4hen it first attached in this case the earliest retroacti,e date can onl- 0e the date of the !al,age Agreement2 Thus, 4hen the ,essel and its cargo are ordered forfeited, the effect 4ill retroact to the moment the ,essel entered =hili..ine 4aters2 AGF4A In#. v CTA 6E>< an/ CIR GR $3(15$ -ul (3" (113 + Forfeiture .roceedings under !ec 2#%0?f:?":, ?%(#: of T = Feffect of loss of shi.ment in the custod- of customs on the lia0ilit- of im.orterHo4nerG *ili+inas Shell v Re+ o *hils 6>OC< GR $%$&5)" Mar %" (11'B Re+ o !he *hils v Shell GR $3(5&' De# (3" (113 + Alleged T !cam .rom.ted the 97 to collect deficienc- taxes from !hell 4ho alleged that the- .urchased the T in good faith2 *ili+inas Shell v Re+ o *hils 6>OC< GR $%$&5)" Mar %" (11' 8 3n "))' and "))& =ili.inas !hell .aid duties and taxes due on its im.ortations 4ith the T s it acBuired from ,arious sources 4ith the a..ro,al of the 973, 7ne !to. !ho. and D7F2 !u0seBuentl-, these 4ere cancelled allegedl- 0ecause the- 4ere acBuired fraudulentl- and the 97 demanded .a-ment of the duties and taxes .aid 4ith these T s2 !hell .rotested on Dec 2%, "))) 0ut 97 did not act, hence the a..eal to TA2 >hile .ending, on A.r %, 2002 97 filed a collection case 4ith *T 4ith res.ect to a T on the ground that it 4as s.urious and thus 4as in,alidated2 !hell mo,ed to dismiss Buestioning the 5urisdiction of the *T and stating that onl- 4hen the assessment has 0ecome final and executor- could the 97 file a collection case 0ut 4as denied2 A denied a..eal sa-ing the demand for .a-ment 4as not an assessment that could 0e .rotested2 thus *T and not TA has 5urisdiction2 *uling1 Assessments inform tax.a-ers of their tax lia0ilities2 ;nder the T =, the assessment is in the form of a liBuidation made on the face of the im.ort entr- return and a..ro,ed 0- the ollector of ustoms2 LiBuidation is the inal #om+u!a!ion an/ as#er!ainmen! 0= !he Colle#!or o Cus!oms o !he /u!ies /ue on im+or!e/ mer#han/ise 0ased on official re.orts as to the Buantit-, character and ,alue thereof, and the ollector of ustomsI o4n finding as to the a..lica0le rate of dut-2 A liBuidation is considered to ha,e 0een made 4hen the entr- is officiall- stam.ed @liBuidated2A An assessment or liBuidation 0- the 9o attains finalit- and conclusi,eness one -ear from the date of the final .a-ment of duties exce.t 4hen1 ?a: there 4as fraudD ?0: there is a .ending .rotest or ?c: the liBuidation of im.ort entr- 4as merel- tentati,e2 Cone of the foregoing exce.tions is .resent in this case2 These duties and taxes are the .ersonal lia0ilit- of the im.orter and the- constitute a lien to the articles 4hile in customs custod-2 *T has 5urisdiction under old TA La42 Cote1 Co4 TA has exclusi,e original 5urisdiction in collection cases for =" /illion or more claims2 B Che,ron =hils ,2 ommissioner of 9ureau of ustoms, E* "'&'#), Aug "", 200& + Jffecti,e date of reduction of tariff rate from "0K to %K .er *A &"&0 ?A.r "$, "))$: 4hile im.ortations arri,ed in the =hils .rior to A.r "$, "))$D 3m.ort Jntr- Declarations F3JDG 4ere filed .rior to said later date 0ut the 3m.ort Jntr- 3nternal *e,enue Declarations F3J3*DG 4ere filed after said date2 he,ron .aid customs duties at %K2 Three -ears later, an informer re.orted the transactions and in,estigation conducted2 The 97 declared the im.ortations a0andoned for failure to enter them 4ithin %0 da-s from unloading and issued assessments for more than =" 9illion2 Hence the a..eal to TA di,ision 4hich ruled that "0K a..lied .er !ec 204, 20# and "40&D there 4as fraud 0ut no a0andonment2 9oth .arties 4ent to TA en 0anc, 4hich ruled that there 4as a0andonment 0ecause 3J3*D 4as not filed 4ithin %0 da-s .er !ec "%0" in rel !ec 20#, thus a0andonment ensued .er !ec "&0" and "&02D notice of a0andonment .er /7 "#()4 4as not necessar- 0ecause he,ron had <no4ledgeD and agreed there 4as fraud for failure file entr- that 4as intended to a,oid higher rate of duties2 3ssues1 "2 4hether @entr-A under !ection "%0" in relation to !ection "&0" of the T refers to the 3JD or the 3J3*DLM The filing of the 3J3*Ds has se,eral im.ortant .ur.oses1 to ascertain the ,alue of the im.orted articles, collect the correct and

19.

final amount of customs duties and a,oid smuggling of goods into the countr-2 Jntr- refers to 0oth2 The- must 0e filed 4ithin %0 da-s2 22 4hether fraud 4as .er.etrated 0- .etitionerL -es there 4as fraud2 Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to com.rise an-thing calculated to decei,e, including all acts, omissions, and concealment in,ol,ing a 0reach of legal or eBuita0le dut-, trust or confidence 5ustl- re.osed, resulting in the damage to another, or 0- 4hich an undue and unconsciona0le ad,antage is ta<en of another2 3t is a Buestion of fact and the circumstances constituting it must 0e alleged and .ro,ed in the court 0elo42 The finding of the lo4er court as to the existence or non(existence of fraud is final and cannot 0e re,ie4ed here unless clearl- sho4n to 0e erroneous2 3n this case, fraud 4as esta0lished 0- the 3=D( 33! of the 97 2 9oth the TA First Di,ision and en banc agreed com.letel- 4ith this finding2 he,ron 0ided its time to a,ail of lo4er rate2 Hence, due to the .resence of fraud, the one -ear .rescri.ti,e .eriod of the finalit- of liBuidation under !ection "$0% 4as ina..lica0le and %2 4hether the im.ortations can 0e considered a0andoned under !ection "&0"2 Nes, .er !ec "&0" as amended 0- *A '$#"2 Cotice 4as not necessar- 0ecause 97 learned of fraud after % -ears and im.ortations had 0een released2 A0andoned article i.so facto deemed the .ro.ert- of the go,ernment .er !ec "&022 This section cannot 0e Buestioned as unconstitutional collaterall-2 9esides, there is clear intent to do a4a- 4ith sei8ure .roceedings in a0andonment2 7rdered to .a- ?=&)%,'&",'$&22": .lus six .ercent ?$K: legal interest per annum accruing from the date of .romulgation of this decision until its finalit-2 ;.on finalit- of this decision, the sum so a4arded shall 0ear interest at the rate of t4el,e .ercent ?"2K: per annum until its full satisfaction2 Jl Ereco !hi. /anning & /gt or. ,2 9ureau of ustoms, E* "''"&& Dec 4, 200& +97 District ollector of =ort of /anila issued >arrant of !ei8ure and Detention under !ei8ure 3dentification Co2 OO, Ereco, as agent of the o4ner of ,essel filed a /otion for 3nter,ention and /otion to Puash >arrant of !ei8ure Detention 4ith ;rgent =ra-er for the 3mmediate *elease of /HV Ce.tune 9ree8e 4ith the D =7/, 4hich in an 7rder granted the same on the ground that /HV riston and /HV Cetune 9ree8e are not one and the same2 !aid 7rder 4as automaticallele,ated to the 97 ommissioner 4ho re,ersed the 7rder, holding that 0ased on the findings of =C= rime La0orator- said ,essels 0ore the same engine and generator serial num0ers2 Thus, the forfeiture of the ,essel 0- District ollector of Legas.i 4as affirmed2 Ereco 4ent to TA Di,ision and Jn 9anc, 4hich 0oth affirmed the decision of ommissioner2 Hence the =etition for *e,ie4 on Certiorari under *ule 4# of the *e,ised *ules of ourt to the ! 2 3ssues1 >hether Ereco 4as denied due .rocessD >hether /HV riston and /HV Ce.ture 9ree8e are one and sameD and 4hether /HV Ce.tune 9ree8e is Bualified to 0e su05ect of forfeiture under !ec 2#%" of the T 2

E;3DJ P;J!T37C!

1. >hat are su05ect to tariffs or customs dutiesL !ec "00 2. >hat is im.ortationL >hen does it 0egin and endL F!ec "202G 3. ;.on entr- into the =hili..ine 4aters 0ut .rior to unloading the articles on 0oard the ,essel, is
there im.ortationL 3ntention is the <e-2 !ee also ;! , hu Lo-2

4. 3ntention is a state of mind2 Ho4 do 4e esta0lish itL >hat factual circumstances can suggest that 5. 6. 7. 8.
there is intention to unloadL >hat are the t-.es of im.ortationL Dutia0le F!ec "04G, a0solutel- .rohi0ited, conditionall.rohi0ited, conditionall- free im.ortation and exem.t im.ortation2 >ho are lia0le to .a- customs duties and taxesL >hat are .rohi0ited im.ortationsL !ec "0" /a- an im.orterHconsignee redeem an article 4hose im.ortation is a0solutel- .rohi0ited 0.a-ing all the duties and taxes due thereonL Co2 !ee =atero< ,2 97 case2

9. >hat are conditionall- free im.ortationsL !ec "0# 10. 3f it is conditionall- free, are the conditions met and if not met 4hat ha..ensL
""2 >hat are the classifications of customs dutiesL 7rdinar- and s.ecial duties2 12. >hat are ordinar- dutiesL Ad Valorem and !.ecific 13. >hat are the s.ecial dutiesL Anti(dum.ing F!ec %0"G, ounter,eiling F!ec %02G, DiscriminatorF!ec %04G , & /ar<ing F!ec %0%?c:G DutiesL 14. >ho ma- im.ose Anti(Dum.ing and ounter,eiling DutiesL For Agrix, DA for non(agrix, DT32 15. >here ma- one a..eal the decision of the DA and DT3L TA2 !ee !outhern ross ement or. , =hil ement /anufacturers Association, !ec Trade & 3ndustr-, Finance and 97 E*"#&#40 6ul &, 2004 16. >hat must 0e esta0lished to im.ose Anti(Dum.ing Dut-L 3n5ur- to local industr-, *ate of ADD and the duration of the im.osition2 17. Distinguish ADD from !afeguard Dut- under *A &&002 18. >hat is Flexi0le Tariff La4L !ec 40"2 *elate to the onstitutional .ro,ision em.o4ering the =resident to fix im.ort duties2 19. Descri0e the .rocesses in,ol,ed in the im.osition of customs dutiesL 20. >hat is the 0asis of dutia0le ,alueL !ec 20"2 There are six methods2 21. >hat if the 97 has dou0t the ,alue sho4n on the commercial in,oice, ma- it ado.t other methodL Nes2 22. >hat is the criterion used to determine 4hat tariff rates are a..lica0leL Tariff heading or classification2 23. >here do 4e find the Tariff headings and classificationsL !ec "04 24. >hat are dra40ac<sL !ec "0$ 25. >hat are the functions of the 97 L F!ec $02G 26. >hat is the territorial 5urisdiction of the 97 L F!ec $0%G 27. >hat is meant 0- extra(terrritorial 5urisdictionL 2&2 Does the 97 ha,e 5urisdiction o,er a ,essel in the high seasL As a general rule, Co2 The exce.tions are ?a: 4hen in hot .ursuit 0eginning from the =hili..ine 4aters ?0: if the ,essel is =hili..ine(registered, and ?c: under the conditions mentioned in Asaali ,2 ommissioner of ustoms, Dec "$, ")$&, 2$ ! *A %&22 29. >ho has 5urisdiction o,er sei8ure & forfeiture .roceedings, the 97 or the ordinar- courtsL !ee 6u,encito Quno , 6udge Arnulfo a0redo A/ *T6 0%("''), A.r %0, 200%2 30. =ersons charged 4ith smuggling use transshi.ment as defense2 >hat is meant 0transshi.mentL Vessel carr-ing goods su05ect to customs la4 must lea,e the =hili..ines 4ithin a certain num0er of da-s 4ith the goodsD other4ise the- could 0e sei8ed2 31. >hat is smugglingL !ee !ection %#"), as amended 0- *A %#")2 32. >hat is meant 0- misshi.mentL 33. Does the 97 ha,e the .o4er to conduct search, sei8ure and arrest 4ithout a 4arrant dulissued 0- a courtL Nes, !ec 220& and 220)D see *ieta , =eo.le, 4%$ ! *A 2'% ?2004:D =eo.le , /ago, 22 ! *A &#'2 34. Ho4 do 4e determine 4hether the structure is one that reBuires a 4arrant issued 0- the courtL A..earance alone 4ill not gi,e the indication 0ut other circumstances should 0e loo<ed at, li<e 4hat is the .rimar- .ur.ose of the structure, d4elling or storageL 3t does not matter if it is used as slee.ing Buarters of the 4arehouseman2 35. >hat if the em.lo-ee of the 4arehouse too< out hot items and 0rought them to his d4elling house, can the house 0e searched and the items sei8edL Nes, it can 0e done as incidental to la4ful arrest2 36. /a- customs agent dro. 0- a store and inBuire from the storeo4ner if duties 4ere .aid on the articles 0eing sold thereinL !ec 2#%$2

37. !eeing a truc< lea,ing the customs 8one, a customs agent .ursued and searched the truc<, is he 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.
5ustifiedL !ec 22""2 /a- a ,essel carr-ing contra0and 0e forfeitedL Co2 if it is a common carrier2 !ec 2#%0 FaG 3f not a common carrier and it is carr-ing articles in commercial Buantities, ma- it 0e forfeitedL Nes, .ro,ided the o4ner of the carrier does not ha,e <no4ledge of it carries contra0and2 !ec 2#%"2 >hat is a0andonment and 4hat is its legal effectL !ec "&0" >ho has 5urisdiction on the legalit- of the declaration of a0andonmentL >hat are the remedies of the im.orter 4ho disagrees 4ith the 97 on the ,aluation and classification of dutia0le im.orted articlesL Descri0e the .rocedure of contesting the decision of the ollector of ustoms in the classification and or ,aluation of dutia0le articlesL !ee Cestle case2 Ho4 long should ollector ma<e the decision, if he denies, 4hat is the remed- of im.orterL "# da-s files 4ith ollector intention to a..eal to ommissioner, documents are transmitted to ommissioner 4ithin # da-s and the latter should ma<e decision 4ithin %0 da-s, if not forthcoming a..eal to TA or he affirms decision of ollector 4ithin %0 da-s a..eal to TA >hat are the remedies of the 97 to collect the customs duties and taxesL Ho4 ma- the 97 enforce tax lienL !ec "204 >hat is the .rescri.ti,e .eriod 4ithin 4hich the 97 ma- collect taxL !ec "$0%

45. 46. 47. 4