CTA Case No. 227

DECISION

Petitioner is the imperter of various ship- ments ¢f merchandise frem abroad which were ordered forfeited by the Collector cf Customs of Manila in / Seizure identification Nes. 1650, 2263, 1917, 1964, 2383, 1908, 2044, 2049, 2069, 2113, 2114, 2309, 2916, 3016 and 3238 All the decisions ef the Col- lector of Customs in these cases were appealed te respondent Commissioner of Customs, whe rendered a decision only in Seizure identificetion Mo. 244, / Ne decision hus 2s yet heen rendered by respondent in the ether cases.

in its criginel petition for review filed on January 3, 1956, fpetiticner sought the dismissal of ee ali the seizure cases. ‘ewever, in its third amended petition for review, petitioner confined its appeal to the decision of respondent in Seizure identiiica- tion Ne. 2044 which imvolves the seizure of five (5) cases of ham.

There is ne dispute aa te the facts ef this case. The eforessid five (5) cases of ham were shipped to petitioner by Tai Fong Hong, of 82 Les 1 es CTA. CASE MO. 227 «2<« Veuex Rd. w., Hongkong. end exrived at Nenile on board the 3. 5. Pasadena on October 6, 1954. The said shipment is covered by “pertinent shipping decuments like the Sill cf Lading No. i-9 dated eat Hengkong, Sth Ceteber, 1954 covering PIVE (5) CASES POODSTUPPS; and alee the Official Reeeipt Ke. 56599, dated Octeber 11, 1954, cevering the payment of estimated customs duties in the amount of THREE HUNDRED PORTY.SIX PESOS AND THIBTYeONE CENTAVOS; Of- ficial Receipt No. 56682, deted Ceteber 11, 1954, covering additicnal customs duties and sales tax in the amount of SIX PESOS (76.00) and Official Ke- ceipt No. 56818, deted October 12, 1954, in tne amount of FIVE PESOS AMD THIATY «THREE CENTAVOS (5.33) covering the payment of additional duties and additions] sales tex." (Page 4, Decision on Ap~- peal of Respendent. )

The said shipment was relezsed to the imorter upon the filing of surety bend Ne. 14 of the Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corperation, dated October Li, 1954, for the sum cf 73,478.00. a Petitioner claims thet the five cases of ham were imported without any deller remittance, and their forfeiture is, therefore, illegal. Thet the said im- pertetion dees net involve dollar remittance is ad- mitted in the decision ef the Collector of Customs of Manila dated July 6, 1955, certinent portion of which reads es follows:

"Considering the fact that there is the \ par tending te show thet the subject ship-

EE

—<-_ —s

DECISION]

CeTeAe CASE MO. 227 -3-< ment is duly covered by a bank release eértificete and license from the Central aa the category of an web fay tan on contrary to lew and orariniee te forfeiture under’ Section 1363 _

the Kevised Administrative

pa fig ne og: gy ~ rebel « a underscoring supplied. )

Aespondent does not dispute the fact that the importation in cuestien dees not involve dellar ree aditancee He merely stated that « "This Office has consistently heid on hone Line of Seekeeens Bute Seeeee the ef tepublic Act Ne. 1410, Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 vere applicable to all anportations net foul under the Se Se See vietaer such impertstions with dollar renittance er rot.* (rps 2 2-3, Ssakelen a0 degeek ot esp ondent. Ye have already held that Central Bank Circu- lars Nos, 44 and 45, insofar es they sought te ree gulate impertations invelving ne-deller remittence, are void. ‘ Aecordingly, erticles imported from abs, involving av-deller remittsence can net be legal)” forfeited under Section 1263 (f) of the Administh tive Cede for violetion of said circulars. {[ . Commissioner of Customs, C.T.A. No. 29, sora sca 1955; Nepemuceno v. Commissioner of Customs, om" Ne. 122, July 26, 1956; Auyeng Mien ». Commi sede. 2 ee ‘

F

‘FE

DECISION -

C.T.A. CASE NO. 227 - ~ - of Customs, c.T.A. No. 219, October 31, 1956; Brillo v. Commissioner of Customs, C.T.A. No. 176, November 1~, 1956; Santos v.Commissioner of Customs, C.T.A. No. 235, December 22, 1956.)

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed troa is re- versed, and the surety bond tiled by petitioner in the sum ot P3,~78.oo is hereby cancelled. Without pronodncement as to costs.

WE CONCUR:

MARIANO NABLE

Presiding Judge

AUGUSTO M. LUCIANO

Associate Judge

(Sgd.) ROMAN M. UMALI

Associate Judge

"\h'$ dle-i ,,·o~ --~\)trsfJ ~!-{ ~ ~.t.

; "' &.ll- . ~ ... , )AH> 1 i r . H A.~ , (p} l g b o .