CTA Case No. 768 (Decision)

. 'I f\EPU~UC ' OF THE PHILIPPINT'~ COURT OF> TAX APPEAL::J QU EZ~N CITY I. ANDAYA TRADING, CTA CASE NO. 768 Petitioner,. versus THE CO}MISSIO~~R OF CUSTOMS, Respondent. X- - - - - - - ~ - X DE C I S I 0 N Petitioner appealed from the decision of re- spondent dated February 5, 1960, affirming that of the Collector of Customs which ordered that the 150 tins of safety matches imported by petitioner from Hong- kong sometime in 195~ were subject to forfeiture, pursuant to Section 1363(f) of the Administrative Code. The facts of the case are not disputed, the parties having entered into a stipulation of facts, as follows: 1. That the one hundred fifty (150) tins of safety matches consigned to the I. ANDAYA TRADING, arrived in the Port of Manila, from Hongkong on September 15, 1954 on board the S/S ttTalisman11 , registry No. 1197, and declared in Entry No . 73580, series of 195~; 2. That the shipment is accom- panied by the follo;,1ing documents: Com- mercial Invoice dated at Hongkong Sep- tember 8, 195~, cfo. r&thFe. 150 tins of safety matches, Value $1 ,050. 00; the certificate of origin of the govern- ment of Hongkong dated August 9, 195~ or the Bill of Lading No . 33, dated at

DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 768 2 T Hongkong September 11 , 1954, for the 150 tins safety matches; Official Re- ceipt No . 52769 dated September 16, 1954, in the amount of �1+ , 179 . 00 representing estimated duties and specific tax, with copies of the delivery permit for the 150 tins safety matches; 3. That the shipment in question arrived without any consular invoice nor a bank r elea se cert ivfiicoalateti,onhenocfeG1 the s eizure for alleged entr al Bank Circulars Nos . 44 and 45 in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Admin- istrative Code , on the ground that no bank release certificate was submitted; 4. That the said shipment was re- leased under bond in the amount of ~4 , 664 . 19 by the Paramount Surety & In- surance Co., Inc . (pp . 53- 54, Customs rec . ) After notice and hearing, the Collector of Customs rendered a decision dated June 28, 1955, ordering petitioner and its surety to pay, jointly and several- ly, the sum of ~4 , 664 . 19 covered by the bond of Par- amount Surety & Insurance Co . Inc . (pp . 41-~2 , Cus- toms rec . ) . On appeal by petitioner to respondent , the latter affirmed the said decision on . February 5, 1960 (pp. 33- 36, Customs. rec . ) � Hence , this appeal . Subsequent to the filing of respondent's answer, petitioner moved to set aside the decision and to dismiss the forfeiture proceedings on the ground that Central Bank Circular No . 133 has repealed Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, and consequent- ly the liability of the merchandise incurred there- under has been abated (pp. 26-32, c. T. A. rec . ) . Respondent filed its opposition to the motion to

DECISION - CTA C.ilSE NO . 768 '3 set aside its dcision on the ground that the motion raised new issues for the first time (pp . 35-~0 , c. T. A. rec . ) . However , in a resolution dated January 31 , 1963, this Court held in abeyance the resolution of the motion , the same to be considered in the decision of the case on the merits (pp . 47- 48, c. T. A. rec. ) . Later , petitioner moved to postpone the hearing of the case until the Supreme Court shall have decided the cases of Andres Lazaro v . The Commissioner of Customs in G. R. Nos . L-21790 & 21794 J G. R. Nos . L- 22511 & 22513; G. R. Nos . L-22512 & 22514; Litton & Co ., v . The Commissioner of Customs , G. R. No. L- 22516, which involve the same issue as that raised in the case at bar (pp . 55- 56, c. T. A. rec . ) . Accord- ingly , the hearing was postponed (p . 57, c. T. A. rec . ) . On December 24, 1965, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the Lazaro cases . The issue raised for determination in this case boils down to whether or not the forfeiture of the merchandise in question and/or the bond is legal . The legality of the forfeiture is contested on the ground that Central Bank Circulars Nos . 44 and 45 have been repealed by Central Bank Circular No. 1.33. It is also argued that Circular No . 45 which requires a prior license for no- dollar imports under penalty of forfeiture has been repealed by Section 6 of Republic Act No . 1410.

DECISION - eta case no . 768 In the case of Andres E. Lazaro v . The Commis- sioner of Customs, G. R. Nos . L- 21790 & 21794, Dec . 24, 1965, which involves the same issue, the Supreme Court held�: The issue of whether or not the importations in question are subject to forfeiture for lack of a Central Bank release certificate in violation of Cen- tral Bank Circulars 44 and 45 in rela- tion to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code has already been an- swered in the affirmative in pyevious cases involving similar facts . We see no cogent reason to alter our previous rulings . Central Bank Circular 133 did not repeal Circulars 4l.. and 45 with respect to the necessity of a release certif~cate. As a matter of fact, paragraph 6 of Cir- cular 133 required imports to be released only upon presentation of a release cer- tificate issued by the Central Bank . Not only that , Section 14 of Circular 44 which states: 11 1lt. No item of import shall be released by the Bureau of Customs without the presenta- tion of a release certificate issued by the Central Bank or any authorized Agent Bank in a form prescribed by the Monetary Board.n was deemed incorporated to Circular 133 by virtue of paragraph 8 thereof which we quote hereunder:G "8. All existing circulars, rules, regulations , and conditions governing transactions in foreign exchange not inconsistent with 1serree Investment Company v . Commissioner of Customs, 2 L-21217, November 29 , 1965 and cases cited. therein. Bombay ~~partment Store v . Commissioner of Customs , L-20489, June 22, 1965� Bombay Department Store v . Commissioner of Customs, L-204bO, September 30, 1965.

DECISION - OTA CaSE NO. 768 5 the provisions of this Circular, are deemed incorporated hereto and made integral parts hereof by reference . 11 \oli th resnect to the assertion that the enactment. of Republic Act 1410 abated any liability incurred for violation of Central Bank Circular 45, suffice it to say that the importations in question do not come '"i thin the operation of said Act , for Section 3 thereof says: "SEC . 3. x x x proyided, however, That goods and com- modities in transit or ~ yiqqslY �imported on a no- dollar remittance basis at toe time of the approyal of this ~ shall not be affected by the operation of this Act. " (Underscoring supplied) (See also Kian v. The Collector of Cus- G.R. toms of Manila, G. R. No. L-20803 Jan . 31 , 1966; Capulong v . Aseron, No . L-22989 May 14, 1966; Andres E . Lazaro v . The Comm . of Customs, G.R. Nos . L- 511 & 22513 , May 16, 1966 and author- ties therein cited . ) In line �with the decision of the Supreme Court in Lazaro v. Commissioner , supra, the herein appeal is hereby dismissed , with costs against petitioner . SO ORDERED ./ Quezon City, December 20, 1966 . SIAO ~~ WE;O&: "Lu ' /1 � Associate Judge ~7~ RAMON L. AVANCENA. Associate Judge