Importer disputes Customs forfeiture order over questionable 2025 raid

A BULACAN-based importer has disputed a forfeiture order of the goods found in his rented warehouse in Bulacan in 2025 after the raiding team allegedly violated due process and the instruction of Commissioner Ariel F. Nepomuceno stopping the implementation of all ‘LOAs’ (Letters of Authority) and ‘MOs’ (Mission Orders) issued by his predecessor.

Based on the appeal prepared by the consignee’s lawyers, persons claiming as members of the Customs Intelligence and Investigation Service (CIIS) Field Office at the Manila International Container Port (MICP), conducted an operation at the RiS1Industrial Complex, Bgy. Malis, Guiguinto, Bulacan on July 11, 2025.

The operatives, headed by IO1 Jovan Lugtu, were armed with a LOA (06-02-30-2025) and Mission Order (MO) 06-02-2025-166 signed by Commissioner Bienvenido Rubio.

The Customs team then proceeded to inspect three warehouses inside the compound including the rented space of the complainant and subsequently padlocked and sealed all the warehouses before leaving.

Among the goods found are assorted stuff toys, clothes, mattresses, key chains, business card and biding cutters, beer mugs, coated mugs, boom barriers, automatic swing door operator, cutting plotter machines, printers, printer inks and toners, JISU 3-wheel e-bikes and assorted glass chandeliers, among others.

The operation, the 68-pages appeal noted, took place despite a memorandum issued by Commissioner Nepomuceno on July 2—one day after taking office– stopping the implementation of all LOAs and MOs issued by his predecessor.

According to Nepomuceno, he issued the directive “to clearly determine what actions are still pending and to ensure that all enforcement efforts are legally sound, properly documented, and aligned with the Bureau’s direction moving forward” (Pinoy Exposé, July 16, 2025).

In a letter to the consignee’s counsel dated July 29, 2025, Commissioner Nepomuceno said he has initiated an “internal review to assess the validity of the service and implementation of the mentioned LOA and MO.”

“Rest assured that this office takes your concern seriously and will inform you of the outcome and any appropriate actions to be taken thereon,” the Customs Chief added.

The goods were seized anyway

For its part, CIIS team claimed the operation took place on June 5, 2025, in the presence of the lessor of the warehouses, Cicily Ong Go, or nearly a month before Commissioner Nepomuceno took office on July 1, 2025.

The sworn affidavits of the warehouse general manager and supervisor, however, claimed the operation did happen on July 11, 2025. The supervisor also averred the CIIS team did not present any identification nor presented a copy of the LOA during the entire time and until the inspection was concluded and the warehouses padlocked.

The whole incident, the counsel claimed, not only defied the order of Commissioner Nepomuceno but also violated Customs Administrative Order (CAO) 03-2019 and its amendment, OCOM Memorandum 162-2021.

CAO 03-2019 mandates that the original of the LOA should be given to the “warehouse owner, operator, lessee, occupant, or any party responsible for the goods” at the premises where the inspection would be conducted and that any inspection must be done in the presence of the warehouse owner or authorized official.

Despite already raising the violations to Commissioner Nepomuceno, then MICP District Collector Rizalino Torralba went on to issue a warrant of seizure and detention (WSD) against the goods on September 2, 2025, based on the recommendation of MICP Field Officer Alvin Enciso.

Last May 19, the consignee, thru counsel, received a communication from District Collector Atty. Felipe Geoffrey De Vera informing them that the goods have been forfeited in favor of the government.

The appeal criticized the decision for allegedly not upholding due process and for not addressing the main issue raised—the operation took place in violation of Commissioner Nepomuceno’s specific instruction suspending all LOAs and MOs issued by his predecessor.

Aside from assailing the implementation of the LOA as “invalid,” the appeal also called for the lifting of the forfeiture order and the release of the goods to the importer.