Dellosa’s documents show wrong arithmetic

In a second Letter to the Editor in a week, Customs Deputy Jessie Dellosa yesterday again tried – in vain – to deflate my reports on slipups by his Intelligence Group. That’s because his own supporting documents show him wrong, putting to question his fitness for civilian work. (Upon retirement as Armed Forces chief, he joined the Customs in Oct. 2013).

My exposés, based on documents two inches thick from Dellosa’s own office, came out in Gotcha, Mar. 24, 26, and Apr. 2, 2014 (see philstar.com Archives). They detailed how, out of hundreds of alert orders Dellosa issued against suspected smuggled goods, only a handful resulted in additional duties of a few thousand pesos, but no fines. Worse, Dellosa endorsed the lifting of his own alerts despite discrepancies of more than 30 percent between the importers’ declared and Customs’ assessed values of the goods. Under the Tariff and Customs Code, goods with discrepancy values exceeding 30 percent are to be seized for auction. The exposés also dwelt on the release of contraband – such as Thai rice – without examination and on shady pretexts.

While Dellosa’s first letter resorted to name-calling, innuendos, and evasion, his second, while doing the same, at least contained attachments. But, as I said, his own papers disprove him. On the issue of his releasing contraband with more than 30-percent discrepancy in value, the documents show plainly wrong arithmetic, yet imply criminal negligence or falsification:

• On Dellosa’s Alert Order No. A/IG/20140130-102, his 102nd such order issued on that day alone, Jan. 30, 2014, I stated that the importer’s declared value was $5,315 against the Customs’ assessed value of $7,281. The discrepancy of $1,966 is 37 percent (1,966 ÷ 5,315 = 0.369).

Claiming that the discrepancy was only 25 percent and not over 30 percent, Dellosa said the contraband was not confiscable. He waved a Customs examiner’s report as basis for endorsing to lift his own alert. The paper did contain not only the dollar values above, but also the figure “0.25%”. The “0.25%” is recorded as the “percentage difference” between the importer’s declared peso duty of P40,931 against the assessed duty of P54,819, so the difference of P13,888.

That entry of “0.25%” must have misled Dellosa to conclude that the discrepancy was less than 30 percent. But from what arithmetic it came from is odd, for 54,819 - 40,931 = 13,888 ÷ 40,931 = 0.339, or 34 percent. Using Dellosa’s own document, the discrepancy is more than 30 percent, so the contraband is seizable. Was Dellosa fooled, or did he just fail to check his numbers?

• On Dellosa’s Alert Order No. A/IG/20131206-105, his 105th such order on Dec. 6, 2013 alone, I stated the importer’s declaration of $5,795 against the Customs’ assessment of $7,700, so the $1,905 discrepancy is 33 percent (1,905 ÷ 5,795 = 0.328). Disputing me, Dellosa claimed that the discrepancy was only 26 percent, so the contraband must be released upon the importer’s payment of slightly higher duties.

He again gave as basis an examiner’s report. The report contained not only the dollar values above, but also Customs Duty entries in pesos, to wit: “Declaration, P39,695; Findings, P53,559; Difference, P13,864; % Difference, 26%.”

Again, where his “26%” came from is out of this world. In earthly arithmetic, 13,864 ÷ 39,695 = 0.349, or 35 percent, not 26 percent. If Dellosa’s arithmetic were to be corrected, the contraband should have been auctioned, not released.

• On Dellosa’s Alert Order No. A/IG/20140122-102, I stated that, from the importer’s value of $9,365 against the Customs’ adjustment of $12,900, the $3,535 discrepancy is 38 percent (3,535 ÷ 9,365 = 0.377). Dellosa insisted that the discrepancy was only 27.4 percent, so he endorsed the release of the contraband.

He gave as basis his Intelligence Group’s computation: “As Declared, P60,306; As Found, P85,200; Difference, P24,894.” Nowhere in his document does his “27.4 percent” appear. What can be gleaned though is that 24,894 ÷ 60,306 = 0.412, or 41 percent. By his own paper, the contraband was seizable, because with over 30-percent discrepancy. Yet he released it.

In summing up, Dellosa said I came up with my figures because I wrongly used Customs Administrative Order 10-93 and Memorandum Order 64-93 as bases for computing the discrepancy. He said I should have used instead the new Customs Admin Order No. 01-2014, a copy of which he attached.

Huh? He wants me to use the new basis, and yet his very own supporting figures – with fudged computations – used the old methods? Signed by new Customs chief John Sevilla on Jan. 22, 2014, the latest CAO 01-2014 was to be effective only after publication in a newspaper of general circulation or the Official Gazette, and deposit of three copies to the U.P. Law Center.

Dellosa ordered Customs public information officer Charo Logarta Lagamon only last Apr. 3, 2014, to post that CAO 01-2014 on the agency website. (Ms Charo said so, when we met with Deputy Ariel Nepomuceno on the morning of the next day.) If the Customs personnel were informed of the new method only then, then Dellosa cannot impose it on outsiders either.

In sum, Dellosa released millions of pesos worth of contrabands. The Customs should have auctioned those off as punishment for the smugglers and revenues for the government. All this, due to his wrong arithmetic – and his confusion with what computing method his subordinates used.

*      *      *

Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., DWIZ, (882-AM).

Gotcha archives on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Jarius-Bondoc/1376602159218459, or The STAR website http://www.philstar.com/author/Jarius%20Bondoc/GOTCHA

E-mail: [email protected]