CTA Case No. 946 (Decision)

):/1:4/ U LI 0 00 t o. -- - -- - -� - -� �- X II 1 o h dec ion o th u to ' c t 1960 f r - � n 1 o o th Coll c or 0 or . a � 11 c.r 1.n h o rt - el , con 1 ti of ylo c , ny o ~toe 1 n a on b l :l t by tit on , a t s id cl w i0 'r t l lly, t 1 pr th ~ r rt cl � o t1 in 1 51+, tition r r- s '� on x 1 t O- by c to tho.t.- ' i t i rn d ut o b 239 d ~ ' of lon so 25 oz n o nylon stoc , 71:> ayon la 1 c o nyi oc t d cr�be tn 1 1. c co t 1 n 1':.> - t e 0 ich nt 1 n rt f c t ~ 290

D I IO - o. 946 C . T.. � C - 2- s e , t r by closing th t r in th 1 n XC ss of 11 5' doz of nylon 0 s, ' ort e of 87 dozen of nylo stoc 1 un cl r d 29 , 715 rayo lab 1 � In vie of t rticl s, t hol reh n- di ld for eizur roce dings . I th , nt th ere ndi rel d to p t1tion r u o t filln of th t0 1 ur t s r c Co . , td. bond o. 1873 for th oun of 3,627. o, th co dit on of i h r .d s follow ft r th s izur roc ed n t Coll ctor 0 c t m or th Port of nil r r d c1 io , deer th � fo f 1 r of th _ bond 11 d or th rch dis in q ... t 0 dt e t b p itioner th irst tio 1 u ssur nc C � , Ltd. , joi tly n

- Dc.�CII �c o. 9 � - 3- r J.y , of th or 3, 627. o thin thirty ( 30) d f r o reo 1pt o otic of h c1s1on. , ro t d ci io of th Coll otor of Cu to p t i t i on r pp al to the r pond t Co of to ho f1 d �t fd i t the cii of r pond n , t in t t tio 0 e ew 0 1c r pond nt er d, th 7 t t 0 r of th 0 t of 3,627. 80, nt th ot l ppr 1 ~ of th r 1 , tiel lu t h 1 l r t , d 500. 00 ditto � sol tion of th co t ov r y tu po / t h or ot h tio r su ct to fort 1 r c � 45, in r 1 t1on to ctio 1363(!) ), ( )- 3 n of t vi tr tiv Cod � ( r or h ht t to r cur uthorit1 fro th Centr 1 for th r le o 1c s co t 1 1 124 doz 11 doz nylon toe 1 r cu to c tody. c _rtifi- J tr 1 sued t c t f or th pc rticl ' 0 in- or to co t XC of 11 5 oz lo 29 , ?15 cl�r r yo 1 b ls. 1 uch t1tio ot b i tt t o e pond t 292

- DECI SION - C � T. � C SE NO. 946 - 4- an additional release certificate to cover the re- 1 ase of the excess and undeclared articles , their importation contravened paragr ph 14 of the Central Bank Circular No. 4 ~ which provides s follows& ..14. o item of import shall be rel ased by the Bureau of Customs with- out the presentation of a r lease cer- tificate issued by the Central Bank or any Authorized Agent ank in a fo prescribed by th onet ry o rd. 11 I (49 Off . Gaz. o. 6, p. 2189 2191.) J ,or which reaso they fell within th class of mer- chandise the i portat1on of h ch s effected contrary to law and, ther fore, bee e subj ct to forfeiture pursuant to Sect on 1363(f) of the Revised tive Code;1 Moreover , rticles which re not specified in th invoice or entry 1 o incur forfeiture under the provisions of Section 1363{i) of the sam Code , for the re son, as hereinafter discussed, that the omission of said articles fro the invoice was caused with fraudulent intent . If such omis- sion w s inadvertent, not fraudulent , why is there no showing that the exporter of th same affirmed such inadvertence, a.nd, therefore, was recalling the shipment~ The absence of this showing de- monstrates a fr udulent intent to omit the un- specified articles fro th invoice1 Finally, t he hole merchandis i n questi on is liable to suffer t he penalty of forfeiture provided ,. 293

DcE. CIS. IOA. - S o. 946 C for 1 Section 1363(m)-3 nd 4 of th R vised d- ministrat1ve Code , as its import tion w s effected upon the wrongful king of false invoice by the exporter of the same, an of fal e entr by peti- tioner. ) etitioner s rts t t there was no intention- 1 or fr udulent isdecl r ation of merchandise . If it is true that there as istake in th shi - ent, petitioner should have taken steps to correct the error by requesting authority to re-export th rticles back to the shipper , or securing a re- lease certific te for the excess importation and correcting the entry therefor. But in ~ ad of t~ing any of these steps, petit~oner sought and ctually secured the rele s to it of the entire shipment. (' Petitioner's claim that the ction on the for- feiture abated with the implied repeal of Central Bank Circular o. 44 by Centr 1 ank Circular o. 133 date? January 21, 1962 1 devoid of justifi- c tion. ( There is no 1nconsist ncy between Circul rs o. 44 and 133 in so far as the presentation of a r le s c rtificat of the Central ank by n 1m- porter before imported articl can be released from custo �s custody. Both circular require that port shall be r leased fro custom's custody only upon pr sentation of a rele se certificate issued by the Central B � (�.u Par . 14, C. B. Circular ' 2 9 Ll

DECISION - C. T. A. C SE O. 9 6 o . 44, supra; P r. 6, c. B. Circul r o. 133, 58 Off . Gaz . o. 5, p . 882 .) ~ircular o. 44 not having been repealed by Circular o. 133 with respect to th requirement of a release certific te of the Central ank, the instant action for forfeiture has not abat d~ Cir ul r o. v Even assuming that Centr 1 8 44 has been r pe led by Circular q. 133, still the pr sent action for forfeitu re �has not abated for the re son that the ppeal to the respondent Commis- sioner w s acted upon by him after he had already cquired jurisdiction to act thereon {Golay-Buchel Cie . vs. Commissioner , G. R. o. L-10994, and o . L-11012, Dec. 29, 1959; oxa vs. Sayoc, G. R. o. L-8502, Nov. 29 , 1956). ~ And as regards the claim for ddition 1 dama s, we reit rate our ruling in Lazatin vs. Commissioner o Customs, c. T. � Case No . 782, January 19, 1962, wh re th penalty provisions involved ar similar to thos in the instant case. e held: ttt x x x Upon perusal of the bond , we observe that liability for the said amount i subj ct to the condition that th appraised valu of the merchandise involved be not paid within 30 days from demand for it payment and it should be found necessary to file judicial ction for th collection thereof . Obvious- ly, a de and for payment of the ount covered by the bond cannot legally be made until t ere is a final judgment ordering forfeiture. In t he case at 295

� 7 � 1 ,, 29 6