CTA Case No. 1652

DECISION -

GTA CASE NG, 1652.

1955 (rah. Pals {hoe The total duties, taxes and other charges thereon were ited ander Of- ficial Receipt 325848 dated Septenber 7s ° fT) A shipment eof 1,200 bales of olf newspapers from San Fran- eisco which arrived en Septeaber ios 2995 Via the s/s/ “PAS. WIL- 5 ani were in g) 4 shipment of 600 baler old gewspspers ¢onsicned to the same Claimant errived from Sean Fran- eisco on September 14, 1955 ox s/e “PRES. WILSOK", and Series of 1955 (fh, 43887). Suemee tnesten t gtk were unger Official Receipt Ne. 36065

DECISION -

CTA GASE NO, 1652 » “a-3922"). he total duties, taxes and other charges therson were deposited under Offictal Ree Geipt Nec. 33265 ahd 20394 doted Coteber 7, 1955 and October 7, 1955, respectively, 4) A snipment of 1,000 eases ei Monte sweet nixed pickles comigned to the same Claimant arrived from Gan ’rencisce on August yaa 3973 = he ee a nr to. 742 yserhes oe 55 (mae esr he total éut . ts taxes ary? other charge: thoreon cepesited under Offictel Receipts Hos, 51515 ent 36203 dated De- comber 29, 1955 an? October 7, 1955, rospoetively.

k) A shipsent of 500 cases Del Monte swoet mixed pickles consigned te the cate Claicant arrived fron San Prenetece on September 34, 1955 Via the s/s “Pan . WILsor,. and were @eclered ny No, ares series of 1955 ( *hagoha”), The total duties, taxes ami other charges thereon were de- posited unéer Official Secetpte OS. a roe 24206 dated De- 3» That said shipments were declared for customs purposes enier the corres iog entry aumbers set forth ateve, the taxen ané duti s thereon were ee They were not, however, covered by cor responding release certificates fer whieh rexson seizure proceedings were instituted against them;

eg 38630 34 5. , omtari ae ee ue in te forfeitare of a2 or were imported by herein sound”

DECISION «

bat as the sace were released te peti-~ tiener under surety bends in the tetal amount of $174,736.51, the defendant Cellecter of Customs ortered hereta octi- tioner and its sureties in aw severaliy to pay the sa <s eashs this decision was affirued respoud- eat Commissioner of Customs in bis de- sisien April 6, ijo5. setn decisiens (Mxhibite "A" and “b", respectively) ara attacaed to the Petit

5. inat as nead of the castoms ser- Viee at the Port of Manila, the Col- iestor of Customs is charged with the Anty, among others, ef oreing the tariff and custome law, ordering the seigure ef srticles imported in viele- tion of law, cdecidin, seizure cases, am enforcing nie decision therein (Sections 602, 2301 ané 2312 of the Teriff and Cue- toms Code), re-

6. Thet in the Decision ef the 8 & Coliector of Customs of May 5, 1961, (Mxhibit "1% and the Conais sioner of Casteas dated April 3, 1965 (Exhibit “B") the forfeiture of petitioner's roods was ordered ai decresé on the ground that ln the importation thereof, petitioner was aneble to presen! the proper Central Bank gselease certificates and therefore violated the previsions of Circulars ++ end 45 of the Central Sank;

7. Theat Central Bank Circular ‘+ Was appreved ané promulgate on June ld, 1953, aod Centres] Bank Civeular +5 was seqreves and iesvued on June 25, 3. That both Centeal Rank Cirealarsa Nos, ana 49 do not bear the signature of the President of the Philippines;

3. that respondents demand went ef the sum of ©171,735.51 Trou ti- tiener end ite sureties. (See Stipulation the enly issue te ve resolved is whether or net the importations in question are subject to forfeiture

DRCISION «

STA CASE NO, 1652 for violation ef Central Bank Circulars Nes. 4% and 45, in relation te dection 1363(f) ef the Revised Ad- ministrative Code.

The same issue has been passed apon and deeided by the Highest Court in cases too numerous to mention, in the case of Bienvenido Capulong ve. The Acting Commissioner ef Customs, 5,8. 1-22990, May 19, 1966, it was held:

"Petitioner claims that the Court of Tax Appeals erred in declaring the for feitere of the articles in question mere- ly because it violates Central Bank Cir~ eulars 45 ¢ that ios considering seid Cireulars do net e > t he eiture of mer- chandise inv tion of eaid Circulars and 45. This Ceurt ferfeiture ef acy merchandise of prohi- dblited tien or of any the ~~ — ef which is effected contrary to as may be gleaned from the following sn of our decisions ‘As alres tated, Cireulars Hos, 4» and 45 were issued a pee oo its powe ara wi Saw un fe) s TS. were pu in the Official Ga- gzette in June 1953 7, failed to present poem yale a ll iseuea by the Cen- tral Bank or its authorized agent banks for tion in question, The sioner

DaCISION ~

CTA GASES NO, 1652 ef Customs may, therefore, seize them and order’ their ferfeiture under the ree ae: mene rovisions of the Aevis ministrative Code. [t is true that neither of the “irculars provide for the penalty ef forfeiture. But since the rtations in question were made without the necessasy impert licence issued by the Monetary Soard pursuant to Circular fo, 45 ané the re- lease certifieates issued by the Gentral Bank or its authorized agent bank in the prescribed fern pursuant to Circular lo. 4, they within the elass ef “merchandise of prohibited inm- rtation” or merchandise “the tation x x x of which is ected x x x contrary te law" thet the Commissioner of Cus tons may seise and order forfeited. To sustain the appellant's actor ta Gan aaa tamenee oF ouge tery 8 2 wg e the law when it authorizes the Central Bank to temporarily sus- i er restrict the sale ef Surkes hn apinines aoneie Sar exc er n eréer to protect the interna- tional reserve ani to give the

Monetary Beard and the Jovernuent

time in which to take construc- tive measures to combat such ¢risis.' (Pascual v, Com ahecioass _. Gus toms, L-10979, Jane 30» 1952 glee Venancic ok Vs Ocer of Cus- oo L-11947, June rig 19793 Peo vw. Que “* flat » 30 Oey Wo. 10, p.

xx RK ae Rm "Petitioner also contends that the merchandise in stion cannot be legal- ly forfeited er Centra) Bank Circalars Noo. and 49 Because ys elreulars heve coe been repealed Central. Benk Circular 133. ‘This contention is

DECISION ~

CTA CASE BO, 1652 without merit. Centre] Dank Cirealar 133 has not exactly repenled Central Bank Cir- Secs Han. Vy oak V7 bat rather 4t re when it provided therein that the circular an ois teak Fete .

oe tk aemnst te a yO a

Bank Circulars Pag ®

Sank Circalar No.

whieh is te release WHEARYORE, finding no error in the decision ap- pealed from, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs ageinst petitioner.

50 OADERSD, @eson City, Octeber 2, 1967.

wae, ae

Presiding Judge

we coucuR:

Mls Meas

LAG A.

Associate Judge 7

Bx ¢ enc RAMON L. AVANCHA sesociate Judge