DOJ has junked the motion filed by the BOC vs Oilink
January 13, 2010
January 13, 2010
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has affirmed its earlier resolution clearing two of the country's largest independent oil players of smuggling charges and the illegal withdrawal of petroleum products filed by the Bureau of Customs (BOC).
In a 4-page resolution, the Justice department junked the motion for reconsideration filed by the BOC after state prosecutors cleared officials of Oilink International Corporation and Unioil Petroleum Philippines Incorporated (UPPI) of smuggling petroleum products to the country.
The DOJ said it was “not impressed” by the arguments raised by the BOC when it seek a reconsideration of the June 4, 2009 ruling, adding that it lack merit and no new evidence was presented to warrant the reconsideration.
“Respondents are being charged for unlawful importation under Section 3601, and fraudulent practices against customs revenues under Section 3602, of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines, as amended. For these charges to prosper, complainant must prove , first and foremost, that the subject articles are imported. On this score alone, complainant has miserably failed,” said the resolution signed by Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera.
“Indeed, except for complainant's sweeping allegation, no clear and convincing proof was presented to show that the subject petroleum products (gasoil and mogas) withdrawn by Unioil from the oil depot/terminal of Oilink were imported,” the resolution added.
The DOJ noted that as the complainant in the instant case, it is incumbent upon the BOC to present proof such as the inward foreign manifest, bill of lading, commercial invoice and packing list among others to show that the said petroleum products are indeed imported, and that respondents Oilink and Unioil failed to pay taxes to the government.
But it said the BOC utterly failed to do so.
“Instead, complainant merely surmised that since the subject products were placed under warrant of seizure and detention they must necessarily be imported. Regrettably, speculation and surmises do not constitute evidence and should not, therefore, be taken against the respondents,” the DOJ said.
“Taken in this light, we find more weight and credence in Unioil's claim that the subject petroleum products were not imported by them but were locally purchased, more so since it was able to present local sales invoices covering the same,” it added.
Lastly, the DOJ stressed it could not believe the BOC's assertion in its motion that Unioil and Oilink could have withdrawn the said petroleum products without the latter's knowledge.
“Given the stringent conditions imposed by the Customs Commissioner in his second endorsement dated May 6, 2008 granting the request of Unioil to withdraw their base oil stored at Oilink's depot, we cannot see our way clear as to how the alleged unlawful withdrawal of the subject petroleum products could have been effected single-handedly by respondents Unioil and Oilink,” the Justice department said.
It added that even in its motion appealing the 2009 findings, the BOC also failed to identify the responsible custom officials and employees as well as their specific acts and omission in violation of the provision of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines.
Oilink Legal Counsel Atty. Rodolf Britanico said they are not surprised by the DOJ ruling as the company has not done anything against the law.
“Of course we welcome the ruling of the Justice department affirming once and for all its earlier finding that there was nothing illegal when Unioil withdraw its petroleum products from Oilink's depot in Bataan,” Britanico said.