CTA Case No. 749 (Decision)

E U L 00 co BIENVENIDO MAPA! C. T. A. CASE No . 7~9 . Petit oner, -versus- THE CO~~SSIONER OF CUSTOMS , Respondent. x- - - .. - - - - -x DECI S I 0 N This is an appeal from the decision of the Com- missioner of Customs, dated November 20, 1959, af- firming that of the Acting Collector of Customs for the Port of Nanila, deereei.ng the forfeiture of nine (9) packages of salted yellow beans ; eight (8) pack- ages of salted beans; one (1) package of preserved vegetables ; five (5) packages of dried shrimps in bulk; and one (1) package of shark ' s fins , for vio- lation of Central Bank Circulars Nos . ~ and ~5, in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Adminis- trative Code. The following are the undisputed facts of the caS'e, to wit: "At the joint hearing of the eases, it has been established by agreement of the parties that the nine (9) packages of salted yellow beans covered by Seizure Identification No . 1857 arrived at the port of Manila from Hongkong on board the S/S 'Hervar ' on August 24 1954, con- signed to the claimant and declared in Entry No . 68247, series of 1954�i that the merchandise are covered by a bi 1 of l ading!� that the duties and taxes due on the sa d merchandise were paid as shown

DEX:ISION - CTA CISE No. 7lr9 - 2- by Official Receipts Nos. lf-9611, 49941 and lf-9310; that the importation covered by Seizure Identification No. 1858 ar- rived at the port of Manila on board the SIS 1Hervar' from HongkongJ.. on August 2lr, 195lr, and declared in ~try No . 68246i series of 1954; duly covered by a bil of lading, and t he duties and taxes due thereon were paid as shown by Official Receipts Nos . ~9612 and 49940; that the merchandise covered by Seizure Identification No. 1859 arrived at the port of Manila from Hongkong on board the S/S 1Hervar 1 on August 24, 195lr, and declared i .n Entry No . 68243i series of 1954; duly covered by a bil of lading, and -chat all the duties and taxes due thereon were paid as shown by Official Receipt Nos . ~9311 and 49316; that all the merchandise involved in t;he three cases are not covered by the proper bank rele ase eertif ic(aptpe. s1'j hence their seizure; x x x.u 6-97, Customs reo.) During the pendency of the seizure proceedings, the articles in question were released to petitioner under PISC Surety Bond Nos . 028, 027 and 026, issued by the Pioneer Insurance Surety Corporation in the respective amounts of �1,885 .00, �1,324.00 and Pl,318.00 ( See pp. 55-73, Customs rec.), the condi- tions of which read as follows& "Nov, THEREFORE, the oonditions of this obligation are such that 1n the event that it should be finally decided that the merchandise herein mentioned should be forfeited to the Government, and/or that a fine or surcharge should be imposed the entire amoWlt of this bondl in case ot for- feiture, or the correspond ng amount of the fine or surcharge, as the case may be,

DJOC!ISION - CTA CASE NO . 749 - 3- shall be paid IN CASH to the Bureau of Customs J PROVIDED, _HO\VEVER, that if within thirty \30) days from demand for payment of the liability herein mentioned the said liability is not paid and it should be found necessary to rile an action i .n court to effect the collection thereofl a penal- ty of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (�500.00) in ad- dition shall be imposed otherwise, this obligation shall be void and of no effect." In his answer, respondent seeks the payment, jointly and severally, by petitioner and his sureties of the amounts covered by said bonds and the addi- tio.nal sum of ~1 , 500.00 by way of damages . Subsequent to the filing of respondent's answer, petitioner filed a motion to set aside the decision of respondent and to dismiss the forfeiture proceed- ings on the ground that with the repeal by c . B. Cir- cular No. 133 of c. B. Circular No. 20 which was im- plemented by c. B. Circulars Nos . 44 and 45, the liability of said articles for forfeiture has abated. In a resolution dated October 9, 1962, this Court held 1n a beyance the resolution of the motion, the same to be considered in the decision of the case on the merits. Later, petitioner moved to postpone the hearing of this case until the Supreme Court shall have de- cided the case of Lazaro vs. Commissioner of Customs, G. R. No. L-21790 and 21794, wherein the same issues

DECISION - CTA CASE No. 7~9 - 4- as those involved in the present case were raised. Accordingly, the hearing was postponed . On December 24, 1965, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the Lazaro case. The main issue to. be decided in this case relates to the legality of the seizure and forfeiture of the aforesaid merchandise. Petitioner assails the validity of the forfeiture proceedings on the ground that Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 have been repealed by Central Bank Cir- cular No. 133. This question was resolved in the re- cent case of Andres E. Lazaro vs. The Commissioner of Customs, G. R~ Nos . L-21?90 and L-21?94, December 24, 1965, wherein it was held: ttThe issue of whether or not the im- portations in question are subject to for- feiture for lack of a Central Bank re- lease certificate .in violation of Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45 in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administra- tive Code has already been answered in the affirmativf 1n previous cases involving similar facts. We see no cogent reason to alter our previous rulings . "Central Bank Circular 133 did not re- peal Circulars 44 and 45 with respect to Athseanmecaetstesrityofoffaactrepleaarasgeracpehrt6if icate. of Cir- cular 133 required lmports to be released only upon presentation of a release aerti- -~~-----~~-----~--- 1 . Serree Investment Company vs . Commissioner of Cus- toms, L-2121?, November 29, 1965 and cases cited therein.

DECISION CTA CASE No. 749 - 5- fica te �issued by the Central Bank. Not only that, Section 14 of Circular ~ which states: 1 14. No item of import shall be released by the Bureau of Cus- toms without the presentation of a release certificate issued by the Central Bank or a.ny authorized Agent Bank in a form prescribed by the Monetary Board.' was deemed incorporated to Circular 133 by virtue of paragr~ph 8 thereof which we quote hereunder: �8 . All existing circulars rules, inreggturlaantsioacnts11o and condit ions govern ns i n fore ign exchange not inconsistent with the provisions of this Circular, are deemed incorporated hereto and made integral parts hereof by ref- erence.' 11With respect 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 within the operation of said Act, for Section 3 thereof says: 'SEC. 3. x x x Provided, however, That goods and commod- ities in transit or previousty a t import~ on a no-dollar remit- tance sis t the timtlof th~ approval of ~is Act s ll no be affected by the operation of this Act.� (Underscoring sup- plied) -----~---~-~~~~~--~---- 2Bombay Department Store v . Commissioner of Customs, L-204:! June 22 , 1965; BombaY Department Store v. Co ssioner of Customs, L-20~0, September 30, 1965. ?/

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 749 - 6- Said goods had already been imported and declared forfeited by the Collector of Customs of Manila when Republic Act 1410 was enacted on September 10, 1955.u Anent the claim for damages, we held in similar cases that liability for damages does not attach un- til there is final judgment ordering forfeiture (See Mapa vs . Comm. of Customs, CT Cases 893� and 894, August 27, /963; Que Hua Shirt Factory v. Comm. of CTA Cases 739 and 753, Jan. 11, 1962; Lazatin v. � of Customs, CTA Case 782, Jan. 19, 1962). WHEREFORE, petitioner 's motion to set aside the decision of respondent Commissioner and to dismiss the forfeiture proceedings , filed on August 8, 1962, is hereby denied and the decision appealed from is af- firmed in ~' h costs against petitioner. SO ORDERFD . Quezon City, June 6, 1966. /. . 'LJC[t;;!�~�~7 NISLAO R. ALV Associate Judge t~ J ~ ~~ RAMON L. AVANCENA Associate Judge