CTA Case No. 338

SERIU!B INVESTMENT COMPANY, J'ietition•r•

• Ve%'SUS •

R OF CUST

, spondent.

X • .... -... -...

D

c. T . A. CASE NO. 338 Th1s is an appeal from the ecision of respond- ent Commistiane~ of Customs affirming tha~ of the Cellector of Custo 1 of th ort ef Manila which tc~ed the forfeiture of •2 Caaea Plastic Ware (toys and mea) • and "1 Ca•• Pa er Print utters •.

The rchandise in question arrived at th

Pert of

H.ongkong on tober 8, 19M en beard th SIS F r AIENA, and .. r • daclued in try

o. 7 817. Clai~ng that the t.portat ion ••• made on a no-dollar-re 1ttance baait, petitiener did not secure a release certificate fro. the Central ank. or f~ ny of its authorized agent benka, aa equired by Central Bank Circulars N••· ..w and •~· eizure procetdings were. therefore • instituted a9alnst said erchandise ( iz r Identification No.

9) for violation of said lrculara in relation te ct1ona 1363(f) and 1~ f the niatntive Code.

Mean 1le, the i11portation in ••tion ••• released upon the filing of a surety bond nending seizure proceedings.

27 3 )o - CJ\53 l~O. 338 - 2 - It is the cont ntion of petitioner h t Cen- tr l Ba k Ci:rcula:ra l'Jos. 44 nd 45 &r null and void in ao f r as they s u ht to 4eg late importa- tions of exchandis• from a ro d wnich involv~d no-dollar r 1ttanee.

The Coll etor of Gusto s of Manila apparently d its that th im~ortatinn did not involve dollar re itt ne • H ev r, sustain- ing the validity of the Cent~al an circular , h• deereed tle foxfeiture o s d rchondise n • l956.

•As r gards ·the conten~i n of the eoun 1 fo~ the h in claim nt to th effe t that C ntral Banl Ci:eulars 10 .

44 and 4 r null n voi~ by virtu of th ge f . o blic . ct . !'\• l41U, it ay t t d h in thut the que - tion of validity of th or aid cir- culars i n~ p n ing resolution in the up.ren: Court.

\.Js.less th ~ Central nk Circ l r are h ld inv lid, it i the stend of thiG Office that s 1d cir- culars h ve tl xorc an offect of la, notwith t noitg t a&aag f public ct No.

41 • -4h ch in ·ection 3 tn reof pr vide• 'th t goods Bod com- moditi s in tr nsl or i orted n a no-dollar ra 1ttanee & t ti of th p ov 1 of t is et hall net be ff~cte by the 0p rati n of th's ct. f The subj ct i • ort ti n ef- fected en ~etcber a. 195· , 'ich lon f r b i ct • 1410 took eff ct c~epte :r: 10, 19~5 ).

(Pp. 1-2, 0 c1•1 of Coll. of Cus~g s of ~anila .

March

, l95 ).

· a- oe 1. respor•dcnt Co saione.r of C stc susta1ntd the st~nd of his u ordinate an1 ffirmed the latter's decisi n.

•rhis '..J fice a e a st ntly h d 1n a long line of d ci io.s th t befor the en et ent of Republic ,ct t: • 1410 , C ntr 1 Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 5 have the force and effect of th law 3al

DECISION «

CeTeAe CASE NO. 338 ~3- and were penser to all importe- tions, with or witheut doller remit- tance. And as those circulars are a pert of the Customs Law puxsuant to

Section 14]9 of the Revised Adminis-

trative Code, their videtion neces~ setily makes the subjeet importetion lisble to forfeiture under Section 363(f) of the afore-mentioned Code. * Page 2, Decision of Com. cf Customs, November 27, 1956. } The fact that the importation in question did not involve dellar remittance is therefore estab- lished. Consequently, we find no difficulty in re- solving the issue whether or net the importation in question was validly forfeited under Section 1363 (€) of the Administrative Code, in relation to Cen- tral Bank Circulers Mee. 44 and 45.

The instant cease is a companion case of C.T.A. Case No. 227 involving the same oarties, which was decided by this Court on January 5, 1957. In that case, the merchandise invelved were imported by petitioner from the same shipper in Hongkong under the same circumstsnces as in the instant case. Both impertation errive in Manila on the same beat on pressed the following epinicn "We have already held that Central Bank Circulars “os. 44 and 45, in so far as sovght to regulate importa- tions invelving ne-dellax remittance, are void, Accordiniy, articles impert- ed from abroad involving neodoliax re- mittance can not be legal 7 Mags ee oo under Section 1363(f) of Adminis- trative Cede for viskeshen ef said cir~ culars. “eats ’ ve Commissioner of Nepomuceno v bunsinsbinae of Customs, C.TeAs Now 122, July 26, 1956; Auyong

DECISION «

G.TeAs CASE NO. 338 ~~ Hian ve Commissioner of Customs, C.T.A.

Ne. 219, October 31, 1956; Brille vy.

Commissioner of Customs, C.T.A. No.176, November 14, 19563 Sentos v. Commis- sioner cf Customs, CeTsAe Neo, 235, December 22, 1 ye We find no reason for deviating from the views expressed in said C.T.A. Case No. 227.

The decision appealed from is reversed, and the surety bond filed by petitioner in this case is hereby cancelled. No costs.

$0 ORDERED, Manila, July 16, 1958, ROMEN M. UMALI

Associate Judge

WE COMCURs

.

Presiding ee = , * ; 11 9 { L " 1-4 Porro? an GR LWA? Tae HT