vt titioner, et al. vs. TA CASS NO. 1607 > THR COMMIGSI GONNA OF: currovs, et al.

AEPUMAC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF [AX APPEAJ#

QUEZON CITY

vt titioner, Ls :

ve 7 versus TA CASS NO. 1607 >

THR COMMIGSI GONNA OF :

currovs, ;

Respemdent. 4 pDRciero#n oe This is an sppeal from e decision of reapentent dated Sovember 14, 1962, effirming the decision of the Collector of Customs in “elaure identification Ne. WOSS, Gecrecing the forfeiture of 20 cases of plain cotton textiles fn favor of the Government for Violation of Centrel Sank Circular Ne. 44 in relation te Seetions 125° and 1363(f) of the Revised sduints- trative Code.

On January 17, 1956, petitioner imported fron Japan per the 8/5 “Yernbaok" 20 cases of nerchantise alieged to consist of plein cotton textiles, whieh shipment was accompanied by shipping doeusants. in the import entry declaration, the shipment was de- clared es "20 asere of eotton sloth woven with dyed , yearn”, subject to « duty of 00.1% per kilo plas 308 ae inerenental duty, under paragraph 99-4 of the Phil- ippine Tariff Aet of 1909.

ee

DECISION «

CTs CASE 50, 1607 Jowever, upon exemination of the shipment by the customs examiner, it was found that it consisted of 20 ‘Cases of “plain cotton textile, dyed in the piece", subject to duty of 10.26 per kilo, plus 30% inere- mental duty, under peragreaph 97-0 of the former Tertiff Act. in cther words, the shipuent that sc- tually errived was different from what was declared in the import entry and the Centre] Sanh Selease Certificate. Although petitioder wae given time to present an amended Bank Nelease Certificate covering the importation, he felled to do sc.

After due bearing, the Acting Collector of Cus- toms decreed the forfeiture of said shipment for violetion of Central Bank Circular Wo. 4, in relaq- tion to Section: 1363(f) and 1250 of the Revised - Administrative Code, As the shipwent was released under « surety bond (Menila Surety and Fidelity Co. Bond Ne, 20485, dated Janmary 25, 1996) in the amount of 993,382.90, petitioner and surety were ordered to pey in cash, jointly and severally, to the Yurean of Customs the seid amount within 3° days after receipt of the decision, Petitioner having interposed an sppesl te the Comsissioner of Customs, the letter, in tis decision Gated Yovember 14, 1962, affirmed the decision of the Collector of Customs. The decision of the Com- wissioner wes received by petitioner's counsel on 60

Ses

DECIGION «

CTA CASE WO. 1607 3 November 27, 1962. fetitioner, jointly with other shippers, filed s moticn for reeonsideration of seid decision dated December 13, 1962, om the ground that Centrel Bank Circular lic. 4h has been repealed by Central Senk Cireuler “eo. 13} and the forfeiture of the serchandise in question has abetted. In an order dated “arch 10, 1965, the joint sotion was denied, which deniel was received by petitioner's counsel on March 20, 1965. On Mareh 31, 1965, petitioner filed the instant petition for review. This case was subsequently subeitted by the parties for deci« sion on the bests of the records. The iesves presented by the parties are as whet r Cireuler Yo. S+ hes been re } Central Bank Circuler %. 133 and Mability of forfeiture for viclation has sbated.

On the question whether or sot the petition for review wee filed within the }0-day pericd provided in Section 11 of Republie act Ho, 1125, respondent sorgues thet from the reeeipt of the decision of respendent on Sovember 27, 1962 to the alleged dete of filing of the joint emotion for reconsideration on Decenber 26, 1962, 29 days had passed; end the preseriptive period was thereafter suspended and began to run anew on | | ee eS eee se) ee ie tated Se ee - 7 ' -

DECIGION -

CTA CATR WO. 1697 4 iaroch 20, 1965, the dete when petitioner's counsel received the Order Genying the joint sotion for reconsideration dated March 19, 1955. So that from for review was filed, another 11 days wes consumed. Consequently, respondent concludes thet petitioner had consumed 4 days before filing his appeal. We find respondent's contention well teken, | One of the special and affirmative defenses alleged in the enewer of respondent states as followss Br The instant petition for review led beyond the period of 30° ve from receipt of decision as for . ware a - e Act 125 pper Fac- ener tne GA.

lio, 1 Jan. 1%, ener SF ° The records the joint motion ved 1965, Uniis the instent petiti ew wes filed with Court on Mareh e 1965 =. 5S — oly ine ns sidered to have been sre gh y ed nnn tron hao hence the Satenned appeal is < Dig: 0} days late." (Underscoring sup- The above quoted eliegations have not been dented by petitioner; henes, they are deemed admitted, The appeal was, therefore, filed out of tise and this Court hes no jurisdiction te entertain the sane.

= :

DECTSION «

CTA CASE 5, 1607 5 At any rete, even assuming that the herein appeal wes timely filed, we finé no legel basis to Gisturd the decision appealed from. The legality of the seizure and forfeiture of serchandise for vio~ letion of Cirewlar "co. 44 of the Central Dank, not- withstanding Cirewlar “o. 133 of seid Bank, has been Gefinitely settled (See Menvenido Capulong v. The Aeting Commissioner of Customs, 9.8. Ho. 1-22999, May 19, 1966, ond ceoes cited therein). We think the issue deserves no further coment.

WHERDPORS, the herein appeal is hereby dismissed, with costs against petitioner, 80 ORDERAD. .

weson City, Yebruary 28, 1967.

Juége

Presiding

we CONCUR:

Ailes Locos

ren Re ALVAREZ ® —— ee =" —_