CTA Case No. 1158

REPUBLIC OF Ti PHILIPPINES —

COURT OF TAX APPRALS

MANILA a

ap!

ROSITA €. DE LA CRUZ and © fal JUANA T. DE LA CRUZ (4h Petitioner, =~ verses - CTa CASE NO. 1158 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent.

een a neaeaenecenreere ROSITA C. DE La CRUZ Petitioner, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent.

Keee#erenwrhiee#eqeeoasse#e ¥ .

DECISIOGORS

These are appeals from the decisions of the Com missioner ef Customs ordering the forfeiture of Alto Surety @ Insurance Co., Ine. Bonds Nos. 9902, 0-9959, G-9984, 0-9985, G-11071, G-11085, G-11102, (-11086, G=-99O3, G-11189, G-11193, G-11%50, 0-9900, O-10077, G=11027, G-1103 and 06-9832 and holding petitioners liable jointly and severally with the Alto Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. for the payment of the tetal sum of P397 89%. 29. | | Upon motion of petitioners the above-entitled cases were heard jointly in view of the similarity of the issues involved.

The facts are not disputed. Sometime in 1954 and 1955 petitioners received various shipments of foodstuff and textile from ‘ongkong and Japan. The importations " 354 we CTA CASES NOs. 1158 & 1198 were covered by bills of lading and commercial invoices ‘but petitioners failed to present the necessary consulser inveieces and Central Rank release certificates as re- quired by Central Bank Circulars No. Y and 45. Where- upon, the Collector of Custeas for the Port of Mand le instituted seizure proceedings pursuant to Sections 1363(f), 1250 and 1363(m)-3, % and 5 ef the Revised Administrative Code. Meanwhile, the shipments in quest~ ion were released from customa custody under bend after payment ef customs duties and taxes. After due hearing, the Colleetor of Customs found the impertations were in violation ef the provisions ef Central Sank Cir- eulars Nos. we and &§, Consequently, he ordered the forfeiture and confiseation of the bonds posted hy petitioners. Fetitioners appealed to the Commissioner of Customs who affirmed the decision of the Collector. Hence, this appeal. | On February 13, 1963, petitioners filed a sup- plemental petition, alleging therein that Central Bank Circulars Nos. ‘Ye and 45 were repealed by Central. Bank Cireular No. 133 on Jamary 21, 1962 and that by virtue ef the repeal the penalty of forfeiture ineurred under said two ciroulers was abated.

The questions posed by the parties for our eon- ‘sideration ultimately narrow down to whether or not the forfeiture of the goois in question is in accord- ance with law.

: \ 352 ee ee oe

DECISION ~

CTA GASES NOS. 1158 a 1198 -3- i . The question is not new. In Paseual vs. Com | ; missioner of Customs, 0. R. Wo. 1-10979, June 30, | 1999; Commissioner of Customs vs. Leuterio, G. R. to. L~9142, Cetober 17, 1959, it was held that goods in- ported in violation of Circulars Nos. V+ and 45 of the Central Bank are subject to forfeiture under Sec- tion 1363(f) of the Administrative Code.

Petitioners contend that the repeal ef Central Bank Cireulars Nos. ’+ and 85 by Central Pank Cir~ cular No. 133 extinguished the Liability of forfeiture ineurred under the former two circulars.‘ ™m a long | line of decisions, we heave consistently held that in respect te the requirement of a release certificate issned by the Central Bank or any ef its agents to cover importations, Central Bank Cireular No. 133 did not in any way repeal Central Bank Circulars Nos. ‘4 and 45, And even if it 444, the repeal aid not make the illegel importation legal |(Andres Lazaro vs. Con- missioner of Customs, CTA Cases Nes. 833 & 83%, June 1k, 19633 Camero vs. Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case No. 1153, July 30, 19633 Mapa ve. Commissioner of Customs, CTA Cases Nos. 893 and 594, August 27, 1963; De la Cruz ws. Commissioner ef Customs, CTA Cases Nos. 980 and 1150, August 27, 1963).

WHRABPORR, finding no errer in the decisions appealed from, the same are hereby affirmed in tote,

DECISION «

CTa CASES NOS. 1158 & 1198 ~ he with costs against petitioners.

September 30, 1963.

(4gd) ROMAN M. UMALI

Associate Judge

I CONCUB:

(bq) MARIANO NABLE

Presiding Judge

354