CTA Case No. 865 (Decision)

Republic of th' e Philippin~s COURT OF .TAA APPEALS Manila BIENVENIDO CAPULONG, CoT.A. CASE NO. 865 Petitioner, - versus - TIMOTEO Y. ASERON, in his capacity as Acting _Com- missioner of Customs, Respondent. X- - - - - - ~ - - - - X DECISION This is an appeal from the decision of respond- ent Commissioner of Customs affinning that of the Col- lector, of Customs of Manila which decreed the forfei- ture of thirty-nine packages of various kinds of mer- chandise imported from abroad by petitioner sometime in 1954. The facts of the case are stated in the stipula- \ tion of facts submitted by the parties, pertinent por- tions of which are as follows: 1. That the petitioner is of legal age, married, Filipino and a resident of 1138 �Quezon Boulevard, Manila, while res- pondent is the duly qualified Acting Com- missioner of Customs with offices located at the Bureau of Customs Building, Port Area, Manila; 2. That on October 20, 1954, the petitioner imported from Hongkong into the Philippines thirty-nine (39) pack- ages of various kinds of merchandise which were declared under Import Entry No. 84039, Series of 1954; � 3. That the above merchandise was covered by a Bill of Lading and official receipts evidencing payment of customs duties and sales taxes, but was not co- vered by consular invoice; 4. That the value of the above mer- chandise is ~22,410.00, which importation v

. '' DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO . 865 .. 2 .. was effected thru the no-dollar remit- tance system; 5. That the above merchandise was not covered by any import license and release cer- tificate from the Central Bank of the Philip- pines and was the subject of Seizure Identifi- cation No . 2087, instituted by the respondent and or his duly authorized representative for the failure of the petitioner to produce the import license and the Cent~al Bank Release Ce~tificate covering the subject merchandise as required by Central Bank Circulars Nos . 44 and 45, in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code; 6. That the above-mentioned shipment was, however, released and delivered to the petitioner under Surety Bond No. 109 in the amount of t22,410.00, of the Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation, posted by the petition - er and the said surety corporation; 7. That on May 18, l%0, the respondent rendered judgment in the above-mentioned Sei- zure Identification No. 2087, the dispositive part of which reads as follows: �\VHEREFORE, by authority of Sec- tion 1380 of the Revised Administrative Code in relation to Section 3702 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the PhiliP- pines, it appearing that the subject� merchandise were released to the claim- ant under Surety Bond No. 109 (1954) of the Pioneer Insurance & Surety Cor- poration, with a value of TWENTY TWO THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TEN (J22,410.00) PESOS, it is hereby ordered that the said bond be, as the same is hereby confiscated, and the principal, Bien- venido Capulong, as well as the surety, Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation, are hereby ordered, jointly and several- ly, to pay in cash the afore-stated amount to the Bureau of Customs with- in thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy of this decision in accordance with the terms of the said bond.� (See PP� 25-26, c.r.A. records.) There is no question that the articles in ques- tion were imported in violation of Central Bank Cir- '

.I DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 865 -3 - culars Nos. 44 and 45 and are therefore subject to for- feiture under Section 1363(f) of the ,A.dministrative Code (now Section 2530 (f), Tariff & Customs Code). It is, however, contended that with the promulgation of Cen- tral Bank Circular ~ o. 133, all actions and proceedings involving forfeiture of goods for violation of Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 which have not been reduced to final judg- ment are deemed abrogated. [The question raised by petitione ~ is not new. In several cases already decided by this Court it was held that Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 were not repealed by Circular No. 133, and that assuming that they were re- pealed, the legality of the forfeiture proceeding under the old circulars is not affected by their subsequent repeal. The expiration or repeal of said circulars did not have the effect of legalizing an importation of goods which was illegal at the time of importationo (See Litton & Co., Inc. v. Com. of Customs, c. T.A. No. 784, October 30, 1963, and cases cited therein. ) I WHEREFORE , the decision appealed from is hereby affirmedp with costs against petitioner._] SO ORDERED. Manila, February 24, 1964. ROMAN M. UMALI Associate Judge