Ld Bepublic of the Philly Nee W » Gourt of Tax Appeals Is Manila vs. Cummissl Onkr of Customs

Ld

BEPUBLIC oF THE PHILLY Nee

w

» GOURT OF TAX APPEALS

is MANILA @Vv (4 () QO WGA BULAT PACTORY, Petitioner, - Versus - C.t.A. CASE NO, 739 CUMMISSL ONKR OF CUSTOMS, Respondent.

RrReeawewnreenes ee wae X yuk MUA SHIRT PACTORY, Fetatioaer, =< ~ Versus - welsh. bale BO, 753 COMMISSIONSA Gy CUSTOMS, Respondent, XKeeweensn ©= we www ese = XX

DRULTLS&1AGOH

These are appeals from two separate degisions

of the Commissioner of Customs in Seisnre Identifi-

cation fos. 2136 and 2999, decreeing the confisea- tion of the bonds filed for the release of several Cases of knitted cotton undershirts and ordering petitioner que ‘ua Shirt Pectory aad the Ploneer In- surance anid durety bo., Inc. to pay in cash to the Bureau of Customs the respective sums of 134,664,446 and 722,196.26.

The fucts are act controverted endare as gathered frow tue stipuiations of facts upon which the Cases vere submitted to tiliis Court for decision.

The petitioner, a business concern organized in accerdance with law, made two separete importa- tions from “Mongkong. The first, consisting of 37 cases of knitted cotton undershirts, arrived in the DUCiIS LON ~ C.T.he CASES BOS, 739 & 753

~Z=

City of Manila on November 3, 195%, per ©S *Strust S@onia",. The second, consisting of *9 cases of knitted cotton undershirts, arrived in the City of Manila on October 21, 195%, per 55 “Slerver". Both shipments were duly covered by the corresponding bills of leading snd commercie] invoicer, and all taxes and duties due thereon were paid. However, they were not accompanied by any consular invetice nor Central flank Pelease Certificate, for which reae sen they were seize’ by the Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila as having been imported in viola- tien ef Centre] Penk Circulars "os. ) and 4S in rela- tion te Section 1362 (f) of the Revised Administrative Code, During the pendency of the seizure proceedings, the shipment: were release? under /ioneer insurance & Sarety Co, Honds Nos. 160 and 138 in the respective auounts of 734,664.46 and 922,195.26, the conditions ef whieh bonis read as [ollows:

“NOw itinualvnL, the conditions of this obligation are such that in the event that 1t should be finally decided that the merehendise herein mentioned should be fosfeited to the government, and/or that e fine or surcharge should pe imposed, the entire amount of this bond, in case of forfeiture, or the cor- responding emount of the fine or surcharge, as the Case aeybe, shell be paid in each te the bureau of Customs, PHOVIOED, HO¥. BVER, that if within thirty (30) days from demand for payment of the iiability herein — mentioned the said liability is sot paid, ami it should de found necessary to fille DECISION . C.T.a.

CAsES NOB, 739 & 753 -3- aii action in court te effect the col- lection thereof, a pesalty of “1VE WUNDAGD (P500,00) Peo03 4 addition shall be imposed, otherwise, this ob- ligation shall be void and of no ef- fect. (pars. + and 5 Stipulation of Pacts, sia Cases Nos. 739 *% 754.

After due hesring, the Collector of Customs of Manila decreed the bonds filed for the release of the shipments in question forfeited and oriered petitioner (ue ue Yhirt Factory and the Pioneer Insurance + surety -o. te pay to the burecau of vuse toms the respective sues of 134,664.46 and 22,195.26 on the ground that the importations were effected in Violation of Central Bank Cireulars os, +) ana 45 in relation to Sec, 1363 (f) of the ievised Adwminis- trative Code. on appeal to the Commissioner of Cus- toms, said decisions were affirsed. euce the filing of the instent petitions for review to which respon- dent angweres, seeking their dismissal and tie paywent by petitioner of the respective sums of 94,664%,'6 and 722,195.26, as counterclaims, auc the respective amounts of 590.09 ant 7500.00 or a total of 1,000.00, as additional damages.

The resolution of these two Cases turns upon the question of whether or not the importatlons at bar are subject to forfeiture for aving been effected in violation of Central leuk Girevlars Noe. +) aad 49 in relation to Sec. 1363 (f) of the Aevised Adwinis- trative Code.

DECISION = ColeAe

CASAS N98, 739 & 753 «be “this legal question 4s not of first iupres- sion. in previous cases (Pascual vs. The Commis- sioner of Customs, Geis NO. 1410979, June 30, 1959; Commissioner of Customs vs. Pascual, Gk. No. L-9536, November 16, 1959; and the Acting Commissioner of | Customs vs. leuterio, Gl. Wo, L-91%2, Oetober 17, 1959), which are similar to the cases at bar, tie Supreae Court has consistently held the validity of Central Bank Circulars fos. W ane +5 on the basis of the Violation of which imported merchandise were forfeited. ‘the Supreme Court sald:

“As already stated, Circulars Nos. “% and 45 were issued by the Monetary Board within the of its powers. They were gue ta Offleial Gazette in June 953. Appeliant failed to present to tie . :

sioner of Customs release certificate issued by the Cantral Dank or its duly authorized agent banka for the importation in question. ‘The Commissioner of Customs, may therefore, selze them and order tieir forfeiture unter the aforeoucted provi- sions of the Revised Administrative Code.

It is true that neither of the Cirmlers provided for the penalty of forfeiture. But since the importation in question were made without the necessery import license issued ye the hd cna’ the atte pursuant to G releases certificate issued by "i 4 Rok, benk or ite authorized agent banks in the preseribed form oursuant to Cirevlar No, 44, they fell within the Class of merchandise of prohibited importa. | | tion or werehandise the ortetion xX K x, ; of whieh is effected x x x contrary to jew | that the Commissioner of Customs way seize and order forfeited, ‘Yo sustain the ap- ' pellent's theory of the case would render nugatory the aim and e of the law + when it authorized t trel Bank to | = verb fog suspend < restrict the sale ore exchange licensi during an exchange Grisis in order to moos Be the in- rs 19 ~ DECISION 3 C.T.A.

CASES oS, 739 & 753

* % Cd

tornaticnal reserve and to give the ‘one- te y Beare and the Government time in which to teke constructive measures to combat such crises.” (Pascual ve, Commissioner of Customs, gupga; The Conmissioner of Customs vs. -ascual, gee Acting Com- ~ missioner of Gustoms vs. Louterie, sugra.)~ As afore-stated, responient, in his answers, likewise seeks the peyment by petitioner in each Gese of the additional sum of PH 0O,00 by way of denayes, ten perusel of the bonds, we observe that lishility for the said seount is subject to the cone dition that the appraised value of the merchandise involved be not paid within 30 days from demand for its payment anc it should be found necessary to file a judicial action for the collection thereof, ob- vivusly, a demand for payment of the awount covered by the bond cannot lecally be made until there is a final judgment orverine forfeiture, in the ease at bar, there is as yet no fine] judoment of forfeiture, Consequently, there is as yet neo liebility on the part of petitioner for said damaves, PRK PORE, petitioner Que Mua Shirt Pactory is hereby ordered to pay to respondent Commissioner of Customs or his authorized representstive the reese J pective sums of 34,664.46 and 22,199.26, represent- = eT ing the appraised value of the shinments in question, i se With costs acainst petitioner,