CTA Case No. 789 (Decision)

Republic of the Phillppines COURT OF, TAX APPeALS MAN ILA MUSNGI & SONS , C. T. A. CASE NO . 789 Petitioner , - versus - THE COMMISSIONER OF ClJSTOMS , Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - X DE CI S I 0 N The petitioner has appealed from the decision of the respondent affirming that of the Collector of Customs of Manila in Seizure Identification No .. 2483 1 dated July 12, 1955, decreeing the forfeit ure of two (2) cases of merch~ndi se consisting of tricycles (complete}, fancy jewelry, cigarette lighters , foun - tain pens , etc. The said two cases of merchandise were shipped by Milshire International Corporation , 110 West 40th Street, New York 18 , U. S. A. , consigned to petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner ordered from the shipper two cases of cycle parts . What actually ar- rived were two cases containing complete tricycles, fancy jewelry, cigarette lighters , fountain pens , etc., as follows: CASE I - 36 pes. in 12 Ctns. Junior Tricycle complete CASE II - 125 pes. Empty boxes Sheaffer's Fountain pen containers for display 349 pes. Cotton Shirts (Barclay Sport Wear)

DECISION - C. I . A. CASE NO. 789 - 2- 18 pes. Ladies Rayon Handbag 527 pes . Men ' s Mercerized cot- ton socks 431 pes. Sheaffer ' s Fountain pen 83 pes . Panty Girdle 3/ad. garter (Playtex- Magic - controller in pl astic tubes) 1 pc. Murray Tricyle (complete) 283 pes . Cig. Lighters �champ� 12 pes . Gold plated neckla ce 36 pes . Gold plated bracelets 166 pes . Gold plated earrings (some w/ imitation pearls) The two cases in question arrived in Manila on Dec - ember 16 , 1954 accompanied with a bill of lading and consular invoice describing the merchandise as �cycle parts�. When the goods arrived , petitioner secured a release certificate fro~ the Central Bank for �2 cases parts of cycle" , and filed an import entry tor such articl es . However , upon examination of the two cases which actually arrived , they were found to con - tain not cycle parts but complete t r icycles , fancy jewelry, cigarette lighters , fountain pens , etc� as described above. Accordingly , they were ordered for- feite rl for violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos . 44 and 45 , in relation to Section 1363 (f) , (i ), (m) - 3 , (m) - 4 , and (m) - 5 of the dminis t rative Code . During the pendency of the case in the Bureau of Customs , the goods were released to petitioner upon the filing of a surety bond for P-4 , 207. 53 (FNS & ACI Bond No . 1966 , dated June 16 , 1955) to guaran - tee payment of the appraised value of the goods should the case be decided adversely against petitioner.

DECISION - :C.T . A. CASE N0 .789 "7 3 - It is contended on behalf of petitioner that it made a correct and accurate declaration of the merchandise on the basis of the shipping documents ; that there is no discrepancy in the commodity code classification of the merchandise involved; that said merchandise are not subject to seizure or forfeiture for t~e reason that they were erroneously shipped to petitioner; and that said merchandise are not subject to forfeiture for violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos . 44 and 45 because said circulars are void. There is no question that the goods which ar- rived were not correctly declared or described in the shipping documents and in the import entry prepared and filed for and on behalf of petitioner. It is al- leged that petitioner was informed in advance that the goods actually shipped to it by the shipper in New York were not the goods which were ordered, and yet after the goods arrived in Manila petitioner filed an import entry describing the goods as "2 cases parts of cycle.� There was , therefore, an intention- - al misdeclaration. It having been established that the goods ordered were different from the goods which actually arrived, and are classified differently un- der the commodity classification of the Central Bank, the insistenc~ of petitioner that "there is no dis- cre pancy in the commodity classification of the mer- chandise involved� is difficult to understand. The contention that sai d merchandise are not subject to forfeiture because they were erroneously

DECISION - C. I . A. CASE NO . 789 -4- shipped to petitioner deserves scant consideration. If , as alleged , the merchandise were erroneously ship - ped to etitioner , it should have insisted on the re - exportation thereof . However , it sought and actual - ly secured the release of the goods from cust oms with - out a license to import the same and without the cor - responding release certi ficate from the Central Bank. The forfeiture is , therefore , in order. Finally , i t is contended that Central Bank Cir- culars Nos . 44 and 45 are void so that the goods in question cannot be forfeited for violation of said circulars . The question has been foreclosed in Pas- cual v. Commissioner , G. R. No. L- 10979 , June 30 , 1959 ; Commissioner v. Leuterio , G. R. No . L- 9142 , Oct. 17 , 1959 ; see also James G. Blair v . Commission - er , C. I . A. No . 686 , arch 27 , 1961. The de cision appe./Ied f])om is affirmed , with costs against petitioner. ~ SO 0�J)ERED. Manila , January 15 , 1962. ROMAN r � UMALI Associate Judge 'IE CONCUR; Judge