CTA Case No. 778 (Decision)

<. tl~fttJDBUURCT "O"F TTR.\1XI. AP~.EA.U �A1'J!Lo& ' SERREE INVESTMENTPectoi.t1oner, - versus - C.T.A. CASE NO. 778 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, - Respondent. X- ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ - - - - - - X DECISION This is an appeal �rom a decision of the Com- missioner of Customs, affirming the decision of the Acting Collector of Customs of Manila, dated April 4, 1956, in denying the protest of the petitioner against the forfeiture ot the potatoes and garlic in question. The facts stipulated by the parties upon which this case has been submitted for decision are as fol- lows: "1. That petitioner is the consigne of 500 packages of fresh potatoes i ported from Hongkong which arrived in the Port of Manila on January 1, 1955 on board the SS 1Straat Bali', Rego No. 2 (Entry No. 18); "2. That the petitioner is likewise the consignee of 120 packages of garlic imported from Hongkong which arrived in the Port of Manila on October 30, 1954 on board the SS 'Liberal', Reg. No. 1384 (En- try No. 86614-14); "3� That the shipments in question did not have any Central Bank Release Certifi- cate submitted for which r eDaisvoisn11o they were seize d by the Appraiser's n of the Bureau of Customs tor alleged violation of Central Bank Citculars Nos. 4l+ and 45 in re- lation to Sees. 1363 (t) and 1250 of the Ra- ised Administrative Code.

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 778 - 2�- "4. That ruling on the seizure and forfeiture proceedings, the Collector of CUstoms ordere4 the forfeiture of the aforementioned shipments in favor of the Government, from which ruling appeal was taken to the respondent Commissioner of Customs; "5. That upon request, petitioner was allowed to redeem under protest the forfeited Cshuisptommesntds aatesdpJearnuoardryeras , of Col- lector of 1955 and December 18, 1955, upon payment of the redemption values thereof in the amounts of P7,859.91 and 1D25,520.lf.6, res- pectively; . f iled "6. That thereupon, ththeevpaelitditiitoyneorr a protest to test the redemption proceedings, which was de- nied by the Collector of CUstoms in its decision dated April 4, 1956; "7� . That respondent Commissioner of CUstoms in his decision dated March 22, 1960, sustained the rulings of the Col- lector of Customs mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 7 hereof; "8. That the parties reserve their right to present additional evidence if they so desire." The only issue raised in this appeal is whether or not the forfeiture of the merchandises in question for violation of Central Bank Circulars No.s ~ and 45 in relation to Sections 1363(f) and 1250 of the Re- vised Administrative Code is in order. In a very recent decision, this Court held: "This legal question is not of first impression. In previous cases (Pascual vs. The Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. L- 10979, June 30, 1959j Commissioner of Cus- toms vs. Pascual, G.H. No. L-9836, Novem- ber 18, 1959; and the Acting Commissioner of Customs vs. Leuterio, G.R. No. L-9142, October 17, 1959), which are similar to the cases at bar, the Supreme Court has consistently held the validity of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 on the basis of the violation of which imported merchan- dise were forfeited. The Supreme Court said:

DECISIQ\1 - C. T.A. CASE NO. 778 - 3- ' As already stated, Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 were issued by the Monetary Board w~thin the scope of its powers . They were published in the Official Gazette in June 1953. Appellant failed to present to the Commissioner of Customs release cer- tificates issued by the Central Bank or its duly authorized agent banks for the importation in question . The Commissioner of Customs may , there- fore , seize them and order their for- feiture under the aforequoted provi- sions of the Revised Administrative Code . It is true that neither of the Circulars provide for the penalty of forfeiture . But since the importa- tions in question were made without the necessary import license issued by the Monetary Board pursuant to Circular No. 45 and the release cer- tificates issued by the Central Bank or its authorized agent bank in the prescribed form pursuant to Circular No . 44, they fall within the class of ' merchandise of prohibited importa- tion ' or merchandise 'the importation x x x, of which is effected x x x con- trary to law' that the Commissioner of C~stoms may seize and order forfeited . To sustain the appellant's theory of the case would render nugatory the aim and purpose of the law when it autho - rizes the Central Bank to temporarily suspend or restrict the sale of for- eign exchange to licensing during an exchange crisis in order to protect the international reserve and to give the Monetary Board and the Government time in which to take constructive mea- sures to combat such crises .' . (Pas- cual vs . Commissioner of Customs, supra; The Commissioner of Customs vs. Pascual , supra; Acting Commissioner of Customs vs . Leuterio, supra . )" (Que Hua Shirt Fac- tory vs . Commissioner of Customs , C. T.A. Cases Nos . 739 & 753 , January 11 , 1962.) There is nothing in the facts of the case at bar which would justify a departure from the afore- quoted decision. On the contrary, the facts of this case and the Que Hua Shirt Factory cases are strikingly similar in that, in both cases, the shipments were not covered by any Central Bank Release Certificate, for which rea- son they were seized and subsequently decreed forfeited. --

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 778 - ~- The respondent's counterclaim for legal in- terest on the total amount of !93,378 .37 from the date petitioner received a copy of his decision is hereby denied for lack of legal justification. The redemption value of the importations in the respective sums of 1D25', 5'20.46 and !?, 25'9. 91 was paid by the pe- titioner to the respondent under Official Receipts Nos. 68660 dated December 18, 195'4 and 0135'3 dated January a, 195'5', respectively, that is, long before respondent rendered the decision on Marcb 22, 1960. WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is here- by affirmed, with costs against the petitioner. SO ORDERED . Manila, February 1~, 1962. Presiding Judge We concur& ROMAN M. UMALI Associate Judge