CTA Case No. 1511 (Decision)

"'E l'URLIC OF� T HE PHILIPPIt . COURT OF TAX APPEAL3 1QUEZON CITY ANDRES LAZARO, C. T. A. CASE No . 1511 Petitioner, - versus- THE CONHISSIONER OF CUSTOMS , Respondent . x- - - - - - - - - - -x DECI S I 0 N Petitioner Andres Lazaro bas appealed from a decision rendered by the respondent Commissioner of Customs on January 3 , 1964, affirming that of the Acting Collector of Customs of Manila in Sei- zure Identification Nos . 2570 , 2618 , 284o , 2920 , 2930 and 2962 , ordering petitioner and his surety to pay , jointly and severally , the aggregate amount of �107,592 . 07 , representing the appraised value of various importations which were seized for viola- tion of Central Bank Circulars Nos . 44 and 45, in relation to Sections 1363 (f) and 1250 of the Revised Administrative Code . Briefly stated , the facts are as follows : Pe- titioner is the consignee and claimant of various merchandise and foodstuffs which arrived in Manila from Ho.ngkong on different dates in 1955, to wit: 1. Fourteen (14) packages of dried shrimps which a r rived on board the S/S 111'RAFALGAR11 on Febr uary 8 , 1955, and declared under Entry No. 12703, series of 1955;

DECISION - CTA CASE No . 1511 - 2- 2. Six hundred (600) bags of green beans which arrived on board the S/ S "AEOLUStt on February 17, 1955, and declared under Entry No . 1~54 , series of 1955; 3 . Ninety- six (96) packages of dried small shrimps which arrived on board the S/S "SILVERASH11 on April 5, 1955,_ and declared under Rntry No . 300o5, series of 1955; 4. Five hundred (500) pac'kages of green beans , forty (40) packages of cuttle fish and twenty (20) packages of lilly flower (dried vegetable) which arrived on board the S/S uAEOLUS't on April 21 , 1955, and declared under Entry No . 34613 , series of 1955; 5. Twenty- eight (28) packages of dried shrimps which arrived on board the S/S uPRETORIA" on April 25 , 1955, and declared under Entry No. 35023 , series of 1955; and 6. Sixty- five (65) packages of dried shrimps (small) which arrived on board the S/S 11BENVORLICfPt on ~ay 1 , 1955, and declared under Entry No . 36879 , series of 1955. (See E.xhs . A 11 11 to "A- 611 , pp . 27- 29 , Customs rec . ) The importations were accompanied by the cor- responding shipping documents and were assessed for customs duties and taxes which petitioner paid . However, in view of the fact that said importations were not covered by release certificat es from the Central Bank or any of its authorized agent banks, they were seized by the Bureau of Customs for viola- tion of Central Bank Circulars Nos . 44 and 45 , in rela tion to Sections 1363(f) and 1250 of the Revised

DECISION - CTA Ct~E ~o . 1511 - 3- Adminisj;rative Code . Pending the seizure proceed- ings (Seizure Identification Nos . 2570, 2618, 2840, 2920, 2930 and 2962) , the goods were released to petitioner under Surety Bonds Nos . 225, 241, 292, 305 , 306, 372 and 323 , in the respective sums of ~3 , 160 . 28 , ~30,700 . 00 , ~4 , 883 . 79 , ~ 29 , 045 . 00, �3 0 , 365 . 00 , ~3,633 . 00 and ~ 5,805 . 00 , or a total of ill07,592 . 07, executed jointly by petitioner and the Philippines International Surety Co . , Inc . On pril 7 , 1960, after due hearing, the cting Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila decreed the confiscation of t he bonds and ordered petitioner and his surety (Philippines International Surety Co . , Inc.) to pay , jointly and severally, the sums covered by the bonds, in the total amount of ~107 , 592 . 07, within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice of the decision . On appeal, this decision was affirmed by the respondent Commissioner of Cus- toms on January 3 , 1964. Petitioner interposed a motion for reconsidera- tion after receipt of respondent ' s decision but the same was denied by respondent . Hence, this appeal. I The only issue presented for our determination is purely a question of law , viz : whether or not the forfeiture of the questioned importations is valid and legal.

DECISION - CTA CASE No . 1511 - 4- Petitioner assails the validity of the decree of forfeiture on the grounds that: (1) Central Bank Circ ular No. 133 has repealed Central Bank Circulars Nos . 44 and 45; (2) Section 6 of Republic Act No. 1410 has repealed Circular No. 45; and (3) the for- feiture proceedings being penal in nature, the re- peal of the said circulars has abated and extin- guished all t he liabilities incurred thereunder. Factually, the case at bar is on all fours with the recent cases of Andres E. Lazaro vs. The Com- missioner of Customs, G. R. Ncs~-22511 & L-22513, dated 1-iay 16, 1966, wherein it was held: 11Petitioner also contends tha t the merchandise in quest.ion cannot be legal- ly forfe.ited under Central Bank Circula rs Nos . 44 and 45 because these circulars have already been repealed by Central Bank Circular 133 . This contention is w13i3thhoaust merit. Central Bank Circular No . not exactly repealed Central Bank Circulars Nos. -44 and 45 but r a ther it reenacted them when it provided therein that all existing regulations not incon- sistent with the circular are deemed in- corporated and made integral parts there- of by reference . And it cannot be dis- puted tha t both Central Bank Circulars Nos . 44 and 45 and Central Bank Circular No. 133 have a common purpose, - which is to require the presentation of a release certificate from the Central Bank before any importation may be made to the Philip- pines . Evidently , the purpose of these circulars is to keep a tab of the volume of imports that come into the Philippines i:n order to enable the Central Bank to make a survey and study of the appropriate measures that may be adopted to remedy the long-drawn financial crisis in the country � ., /

DECISION - CTA CASE No . 1511 .. 5 - "Even assumi~g that Centr al Bank Cir- cular No . 133 had the effect of repealing impliedly Central Batik Circulars Nos . 44 and 45 , such repeal , however, cannot have the effect of abating the forfeiture case instituted against petitioner for the sim- ple reason t hat forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature and not criminal. In this sense , the repeal cannot be given any retroactive effect . X X X X ttThe a lleged implied repeal of Circular No. 45 by Republic Act No. 1410 is without merit for there is nothing in Section 6 of Republic Act No. 1410 which could be con- strued as having repealed Circular No. 45. But even i f we assume th::tt said Act had the effect of impliedly repealing the afore- said Circular still such repeal cannot also abate t ha forfeiture case against petitioner for the simple reason that Republic Act No. 1410 cannot be given a retroactive affect so as to defeat any act or transaction effected or undertaken during the life of Circular No. 45 . The authority we quoted in t he preceding paragra ph equally applies to this instance . Indeed , under Article 4 of the new Civil Code , ' Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided .' Here there is no such contrary provision . " (See also Capulong v . Aseron, G. R. No . 1- 22989 , May 14, 1966; Andres E. Lazaro v. The Comm . of Customs, G. R. Nos . 1- 21790 & 1- 21794 , Dec . 24 ~ 1965 and autnorities cited therein . ) REFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed , \<Tith costy/against petitioner . SO ORDERED . / uezon City, March 8 , 1967. ROMt:tl'I N. UMA1I Presiding Judge HE CONCUR: L-. � ~~?" ~LAO R. A1Vl>\REZ Associate Judge ~-~~- RANON 1 . AVANCENA ~ ssocia te Judge