LITTON & CO., INC., et al. vs. eo CeTeAe CASE NO, et al.

DECISION

This is an appeal from the decision of respond. ent Coumissioner of Customs affirming thet of the Col- lector of Customs of Manila decreeing the forfeiture of eighteen bales of handkerehief cleth with an ap- preised value of P8,472. 36.

The facts are stated in the decision of the Col- lector of Customs of Manila, dated February 18, 19537, as followss "This refers to the seizure of the above-described articles declar ed in Entzy Ne. 063982, series of =e and con. signed te the Litten & Co,, Ince » claim- ant herein, for viclation 9 mt rz Circular No. 44 in relation to Sections

of the Revised Adminis-

trative Code.

"The record shows that ‘the covering bank release certificete No. 56/5128, dated August 10, 1936 (Exh. "2*) bears Code No. 690206.EP calling for '18 bales cotton textile woven with dyed yarn,' while the actual shipment was found upon exam- ination to have consisted of handkerchief cloth with out unwoven space falling / under Code No. 650217 UI. Mence, the sei- ZUrC»s *The above facts were tm these taken up in the stipulation of facts en- tered into and between the parties dur- ing the hear of this case.

CeTAe CASE NO. 784 | a *“Cleiment, thru its counsel, admits the fact that the importation of the sub- ject was violative of Central Bank Cir- cular No. 44, Mowever, it assails the validity ef the aforesaid circular on several grounds, among which, was that said circular hes not secured Presiden- tial approval as required by Se. 74 of the Central Bank Aet (Republic Act No. 263), for which reason claimant contends Cireular Ne. 44 is null and void and, therefore, this Office has no jurisdic- tion te seize and forfeit goeds import- ed in violation of said circuler*.

Petitioner contests the validity of Circular Ne. _ 44 of the Central Bank upon which the forfeiture of said goods was based. The validity of said circular has, however, been sustained in several cases decided by the Supreme Court. (See Com. of Customs v. Nepomuceno, G. R. No. Lo1112%6, March 31, 1962, and cases cited therein. )

In this appeal, it is ergqued that Circuler No, 44 hac been repealed by Circular No. 133, and for this reason all liability arising from the alleged viola- tion ef the former circular is thereby extinguished. This fesue has already been resolved by this Court in several cases.

"Moreover, even Granting splvande that Central Pank Circular Ne. 8 been repealed by Circular iio. 133, the validity of the forfeiture under the old cireular is not affected by its re- peal, the merchandise in question have ing been imported illegally while it was still in force. The expiration of Cen- tral Rank Circuler Me, 44 did not have the effect of legelizing an importation of goods which was illegal at the time of importation (Golay Ruchel and Cie. v. Commissioner of Customs, G. Re Nese Le 10994 & La11012%, Dec. 29, 1939; Leonora Roxas v. 3a , Ge Re NO. La65O2, Nov~ ember 29, 1 *, (Lazaro ve. Com. of e 377 ath | -— —— —s- peep 4 ty -~ i KO” Sl ae lg —_— eae

DECISION «

C.T.Ae CASE NO. 784 je 19633 see also F. Sara Enterprises v. Cem. of Cuatoms, C.T.A. No. 2, July 3, 1963; Isaac Camere v. Com. of Custoas, c:r. A. Now 1153, July 3D, 1963; Bienven~ ido ry ve Com. Ry ustoms, CeToA. NO&e 893 & 894, Aug. 27, 1963; Juana T. de le Cruz se Com. of Customs, ©.TA. Nos. 980 & 115¢, a 9 1963; oe Ce de le Rak ve Com tome, CTA. NOs. 1158 & 1198, ed 30, 1963, Fermin Sore ve Aseron, G.T.A. Now 966, dct. 7 1963; Extensive Enterprises v. Com. of yf Ren C.T.A. No. 860, Oet. 28, 1963; Lazaro Ve Com. of Custos, C. TAs Mose 728 & 730, Auge 26 & 29, 1963. )

Finding the decision appeeled from in order, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs eqainst peti- tioner.

IT CONCURS

MARIANO NAPLE

Presiding Judge