Estanisiao Mn. Leuterio vs. Commissioner of Custcms

DECISION

This is an appeal from the decision of the respondent affirming an order of the Collector of Customs of Manile decreeing the forfeiture of 3% bales of cotton cloth imported by petitioner sometime in 1955. The facts of the case, as stipulated by the parties, are as follows:

"x x 2 x "2. That on May 22, 1955, a ye consisting of 34 bales ef y cloth arrived at the pert of Manile on 5.5. Franfurt, com signed to petitioner;

"3. Thst said shi t was en- tered the Bureau of Customs under formal entry Mo. oy together with mg bill of leding and com mercial lavesess that the same was = covered by release certificate and consular invoice;

"|. That pesceianse paid the corresponding customs duties, sales tax, and a in lieu con- sular invoice under official re- ceipts. mah “hale and ahs, dated May 26, 1 "5. That on May > 1955, said shipment was the —y ~ hy a “—, proceeding (Customs 1 No, 1 Seizure Identification No. 3086) " on e414 _ -2

DECISION-

} alleged viclation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. * and | in rela-~ tion to Sections 1363(f) and 1250 ef the Revised Administrative Code for failure of petitioner to pro- duce a release certificate from the Central Bank and an ie license from the monetary of the said bank, "6. That said shipment was re- leased upon posting by petitioner of a surety bond executed by him and by the ‘aramount Surety and Insurance Co., in the amcunt of 219,966.53 to answer for the value of merchan- dise pending the outcome of the seigure proceeding;

the then aeting Collector of rendered on April 4, 1960, a decision finding the subject shipment liable to forfeiture under Section 1363(f)

of the Revised Administrative Code

in relation to Central Hank Cir- @ulars Yos. ++ and 45, and since the said shipment gas released on bond it ordered petitioner and the Paramount Surety and Insurance Co., to pay the sum of °19,986.53 to the Bureau of Customs;

"8. That from said decision, petitioner appealed to the Commissioner of Customs, im a decision dated Oetober 26, 1960, affirmed the afore- mention decision of the acting Collect- or of Customs;

“9. That on November 25, 1960, titioner brought the sent peti- on for review before Honorable Court of Tax Appeals;

kayaintion of fasts, partion hereto 8 on r es request that their respective plead- ings and the Customs record including the transeript of stenographie notes taken during the hearing before Atty.

Jose Gonzales at the Bureau of Customs

ate

DECISION -

Case No. 977 -~3- be taken into consideration in the adjudication of this case." (pp. 58 59, C.T.A. records) The sole issue presented is whether or not the forfeiture of the goods in question is in accordance with lew, The question is not new. In Pascual v. Com. of Customs, G.R. No. 1-10979, June 30, 1959; Com. of Customs v. Leuterio, 0.2. No, 1-9142, Cet. 17, 1959, cited in Mendoza vs, Aseron, C.T.A. No. 852, Jume 17, 1963, it was held that goods imported in violation of Circulars Hos. bb and &5 of the Central Bank are subject to forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Adminis- trative Code (now Section 2530/f7 of the Tariff & Customs Code).

WHERSFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed in toto, with costs against petitioner, 80 ORDERED, Manila, July 2, 1963.

Associate Judge