A.IC · Yrb I'I!Iiiwi.. U!Iall Gourt Gp TAX.A&"'Liii".... Iui Forum Trading & Co. Petitionerr vs. ~ Co:Tv1niss Ioner of Customs

Decision -

CT

CASE No. 767 - 2 - 11That the petitioner by virtue of a no-dollar remittance of ICC Li- cense No . 7668 1 dated ~~rch 26, 1952, was able to brlng into the Philip- pines 53~ bundles of overissue news- papers, as raw materials for the n~nufacture of paperboard;

"That the petitioner has never been engaged in the manufacture ·of paper board, but has sold to local manufacturers its previous importa- tions of overissue newspapers, and has accordingly deposited the pro- ceeds realized therefrom with the Equitable Banking Corporation, in a special account credited to the name of the Worldwide Trading Company; "That the validity of the said ICC License No . 7668 expired on September 26, 1953.

However, prior to its expiry date~ the petitioner on September 7, 19?3 filed a re- quest for extension fhereof with the Central Bank thru the Equitable Banking Corporation, but such re- quest was not granted;

11That the subject 53~ bundles of overissue newspapers left the port of origin on October 30, 1953, and arrived at Manila on December 2'7' 1953;

1'Tha t the notice of the action of the Central Bank on the request of petitioner for extension of the ICC License No. 7668 was only re- leased on February 1, 1954; "That the request of the peti- tioner filed with the Central Bank for the issuance of a release certi- · ficate of the goods in question which were already in port was also denied; and "That in view of the foregoing circumstances, the Bureau of Customs,

Decision -

CTA yii.SE N0 • 767 - 3 - for alleged violation of Central Bank Circular Nos . l.tl+ and 45 in relation to Section No. 1363(f)

of the Revised Administrative

Code

seized the 534- bundles of overissue newspapers, under Sei- zure Identification No. 1333. 11 11That petitioner as principal ,

with the Paramount Surety and In-

surance Company as surety, filed jointly and severally, in considera- tion for the release of the seized merchandise, a PSIC Bond in the total amount of Six Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty Pesos (~6,720.00), which boi.a.d is introduced and marked as Exh. 1 for respondents·; and "That - the petitioner and the

Paramount Surety and Insurance Com-

pany were duly served with copies of the decision of the Collector of Customs and the decision of the Com- missioner affirming the same. 11 The only question :for determination is whether or not the Central Bank of the Philip- pines has the power to issue Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 as measures to regulate imports which do not involve the sale o:f foreign exchange. This question is not new.

The rule in this jurisdiction is well settled that the Cen- tral Bank has authority to regulate importations which do not involve the sale of :foreign ex- change; that Circulars Nos . 44 and 45 have been validly promulgated; and that goods imported in violation of said circulars are subject to sei-

Decision -

CTA VASE No. 767 - 4 - zure and forfeitllre (Com. of Customs v. Nepo- muceno , G. R. No . L- 11126, March 31, 1962; Com. of Customs v . Santos , G. R. No. L- 11911, Mar ch 30, 1962;

ct i ng C~~ . of Customs v . Estanislao Leu- terio , G.R. No. L-9142 , Oct . 17 , 1959; Francis- co Pascual v. Com. of Customs , G. R. No. L-10979 , June 30, 1959).

Petitioner ' s contention that the importa- tion was made on the basis of a valid and sub- sisting import control license is without merit because , even before it lef t the port of origin, said import license had already expired . The fact that petitioner requested for an extension of the same , which was denied by the Central Bank, does not in any way detract from the fact tha t the subject importation was not covered by either a valid and subsisting import control li- cense or a release certificate from the Central Bank.

Petitioner has no right to presume the grant of such extension.

Relative to respondent ' s claim for pay- ment of additional damages amounting to ¥500. 00 , it may be stated that there is as yet no final judgment of forfeiture .

Consequently, there is as yet no liability on the part of the petitioner

- 5 - for said damages (Bombay Dept. Store vs. Com. of Customs, CTA Case No. 788, ug. 1, 1962;

Lazatin vs. Com. of Customs, CT Case No. 782, Jan. 19, 1962; Que Hua Shirt Factory vs. Com. of Customs, CT Cases Nos. 739 and 753, Jan. 11, ~·

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed with costs against petitioner.

WE CONCUR:

~~

MARIANO N LE

Presiding Judge

ROMAN 111. UMALI sso<;:ia te Judge r:

----