CTA Case No. 835 (Decision)

I li'EPUBUC OF THE PHTLJPPT*F COURT OF TAX I PPEA L' QUEZON cr:.::�y BIENVENIDO MAPA , C. I . A. CASE NO. 835 Petitioner, - ver sus - THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS , Responde nt. X- -�-------- X DEC I S I 0 N This is an appeal from the decision of the Com- missioner of Customs , dated Jlf.arch 4 , 1960 , affirming that of the Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila decreeing the forfeiture in favor of the Govern- ment of nine (9) packages of dried shrimps . The facts of the case, as stipulat ed by the parties , are as follows : "1) That the nine (9) packages contain- ing Dried Shrimps consigned to Bienvenido Mapa and declared under Entry No . 64432 , cur- rent series , were seized for alleged viola - tion of Central Bank Circulars Nos . 44 and 45 in relation to Section 1363(f ) of the Re- vised Administrative Code ; "2) That said importation has no Bank Release Certificate , hence the seizure pro- ceeding instituted by th e Bureau of Customs ; "3) That the shipment arrived at the Port of Manila on board the SS KINA on August 9, 1954; "4) That t he said shipment contains nine (9) packages of DRI ED SHRIMPS covered by Entry No. 64432 , current series ; "5) That the shipment is covered by the following shipping documents ; the Bill of Lad - ing No . M-3 ; the Commercial Invoice ;

DECISION C.I.A. CASE NO. 835 - 2- "6) Tha t the advanced sales tax and duties were paid in the amount of three hundred eighty-eight pesos and eighty-two centavos (P388.82} paid under Official Receipt No . 47252 dated August 10, 1954." (P. 41, Customs Re c.) Since the importation was not covered by the cor- responding license and/or release certificate from the Central Bank of the Philippines , the same was for� feited in favor of the Government for violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos . 44 and 45, in rela.tion to Section l363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. However, during the pendency of the seizure proceed� ings, the merchandise in question was released to pe- titioner under Surety Bond No . 54/4378 in the amount of P2 , 285 . 00 with the Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation as surety. (P. 62, Customs Rec.) On Warch 4, 1960, the Commissioner of Customs rendered a judgment in the seizure proceedings dec- laring the bond confiscated and ordered petitioner and surety to pay jointly and severally the amount of P2 ,285. 00 within 30 days from receipt of copy of the decision in accordance with the terms of the surety bond. (P. 31, Customs Rec .) Hence , this appeal . . In his answer, respondent seeks t he payment of P2 , 285 . 00 and/or the forfeiture of the bond filed by the Paramount Surety & Insurance Co ., Inc. and the sum of fSOO . OO as additional damages . (Pp . 16-19 , C. I.A . Rec .)

DECISION C. I . A. CASE NO. 835 - 3- On Jan uary 10 , 1963 , petitioner filed a motion to set aside the decision of the respondent and to dismiss the forfeiture proceedings on the ground that with the re peal by Ce ntral Bank Ci rcular No. 133 of � Circular No. 20 which was implemented by Circulars Nos . 44 and 45 , the l iability of the aforesaid mer- chandise has abated . (Pp. 28- 33 , C. T. A. Rec .) This Court , in a resolution dat ed January 31 , 1963 , held in abeyance the resolution of the mot i on , the same to be considered in the decision of the case on the merits . {Pp . 48- 51, C. I . A. Rec . ) Subsequently , petitioner moved to postpone the hearing of this case until the Supreme Court shall have decided the case of Andres Lazaro v . The Commis - sioner of Customs , G. R. Nos . L- 21790 & L-21794 , which involves the sa me issue as that raised in the case at bar. On December 24, 1965 , the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the Lazaro case. The main issue relates to t he l egality of the seizure and forf eiture of the aforesaid merchandise . Petitioner assails the validity of the forfeiture proceedings on th e ground that Central Bank Ci rculars Nos. 44 and 45 have been repealed by Central Bank Circu- la�r No. 133. In the case� of Andr es E. Lazaro v. �The Commissioner of Customs, G. R. Nos . L- 21790 and L-21794 , De cember 24, 1965, which as af oresaid involve s the same � issue , it was held:

'"' DECISION C.I.A . CASE NO. 835 -4- "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 Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45 in re- lation to Section l363(f) of the Re- vised Administrative Code has already been answered in the affirmative i? prev~ ous cases involving similar facts . We see no cogent reason to alter our previous rulings . "Central Bank Circular 133 did not repeal Circulars 44 and 45 with respect to the necessity of a release certificate. As a matter of fact, paragraph 6 of Circu- lar 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 : 1 14 . No item of import shall be released by the Bureau of Customs without the presentation of a release certificate issued by the Central Bank or any �authorized Agent Bank in a form prescribed by the Mone- tary Board.' was deemed incorporated to Circular 133 by virtue of oaragraph 8 thereof which we quote hereunder : " '8 . All existing circulars , rules , regulations , and conditions governing transact Lons in fo r eign exchange not inconsistent with the provisions of this Circular, are deemed incorporated hereto and made integral parts hereof by reference. ' "With 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 ProvidPd, how- ~v~r, That goods and commo d iti~s in transit or proviously import~d -l -s-e-r-re--e--I-n-v-e-s-tm--e-nt Company v. Commissioner of Customs, L- 21217, November 29, 1965 and cases cited therein. 2Bombay Department Store v. Commiss i oner of Customs, L-20489, June 22, 1965; Bombay Department Store v. Commi s sioner of Customs, L-20460 , September 30, 1965.

DECISION - C. I . A. CASE NO � 835 ,_ 5 - on a no - dollar r emittance basis at th ~ time of the approval of this Act shall not be affe cted by the operat i on of th i s Act ."' (Under- scoring supplied . ) (See also Bien- venido Capulong v. Aseron , G. R. No . L- 22989 , &~y 14, 1966 . ) With r espe ct to t he claim for dama~es , we have consistent l y held that liability for damages does no t attach until there i s a final judgment ordering for- feiture . (See Map a v . Comm . of Customs , CTA Cases 893 and 894, August 27 , 1963 ; Que Hua Shirt Factory v . Comm. of Customs , CTA Cases 739 and 753 , Jan . 11 , 1962 ; Laz atin v . Comm. of Customs , CTA Case 782 , Jan . 19 , 1962 ; Mapa v . Comm. of Customs , CTA Case 749 , June 6, / 1966.) /wHERE FORE , petitioner ' s motion to set aside the decision of t he respo ndent and to dismiss the for- feiture proceed i ngs filed on January 10, 1963 , i s hereby denied and the decis i on appealed from is af - firmed in iQiQ, wit~o sts aga i nst petitioner. SO ORDERED .~ Quezon City , July 5 , 1966 . ~~--~~~~~~A----- ROMAN M. UMALI Presiding Judge WE CO~ : ~ j/l R( . A~ LVARE~q~~f 7 � ~J(_~~~ -ANISLAO Associate Judge &-L. 'fv~~ Associate Judge