CTA Case No. 736 (Decision)

.. ~, / -'I.EPUl'ILIC OF THE PHILIPPINFl' COURT OF T AX APPE.A.L8 QUEZON CITY / PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL SURETY CO. , INC.� ? .. - Petitioner, -versus- C.T.A. CASE No. 736 THE C0~1MISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent. x~ ~ - - - ~ - ~ - - ~ - -x �f. DECISION This is an appeal bJ the petitie>ner, as :�surety ot the importer Bosol Dry Goods under Surety Bonds Nos. 563 and 561+, both dated August 30, 1955, in the total amount of ~-2V/, 952.15 tor the release of the imported merchandise, from a judgment rendered by respondent dated December 11, 1959, affirming that of the Acting Collector of Customs 'ot Manila declaring tlae importeca goods together witb the surety bonds above mentioned forfeited for Tiolation of Central Bank Circlill.ars Nos. ~ and ~5, in relation to Section 1363(f) and 1250 or the .. :Revised Administrative Code. ~s case was submitted tor decision on the pleadings of the parties and en the evidence or record. The stipal.ated facts appearing in the record are as follows: That the shipment consisting or 87 bales of cotton textiles consigned to Rosol Dry Goods, which arr1Yed at the Port or Manila (Pier 13) on board

DF.X:ISION - CTA CASE No. 736 2 the S/S "Henrik", Reg. No. 968 on Au- gust 1'7, 1955, was declared W�ier in- try No. 71~5, series of 1955, and .co- Tered by Seizure Identification No. 3811. Said shipment is accompanied by bill of lading c1omthpea.ncyoimnmtehrceiaalmionuvnot i c e from Tab Shum ot US$33,000.00 G&F, official receipt No. 32262, dated August 18, 1955, eT1- denc1ng paJment ot estimated duties, sales tax and surcharge 1n the amount of ttllt-,l:t-92.59; That the shipment ot 100 bales of plain cotton textiles consigned to Rosol Dry GoOdsJ which arriTed at the Port ot Manila \Pier 13) on board S/S 11Henrilt" t Reg. No. 968 from Hongko.ng on August 1'7, 1955, and was declared under Entry No. 71~, series of 1955, and c vered by Seizure Identification No. 3112. Said shipment is accompanied by the bill of ladi�g, the commercial invoice from Tah Sbu.n Company in the a.)UDt of US$4?,_000.00 G&F, official receipt No. 32201, dated August 18 1955, evidencing payment of estima!ed customs duties, sales tax and surcharge ill the amoant of ttl'7 7 061.28; That these two shipments are not covered by release cert1ticate5 from the Central Bank or any or its author- ized agent banks; That they are not accompanied by consular invoices; That these two shipments had been released to the claimant upon the filing of a surety bond. The only issue raised is whether or not tbe two importations of textUe g.oods eover~by Seizure Iden- tification Nos. 3811 and 3812, respectively, were Talidly forfeited tor Tiolation of Central Bank Cir-

DECISION - CTA CASE No. 736 3 calars Nos. 41~ and ~5 in relation to Section 1363{t) of the Revised Administrative Code. Reduced to -its barest mini um, petitioner's con- tention is that the forfeiture or the aforementioned impo~ations is ill$gal bee use Central Bank Circulars Nos. ~ and ~5 are imvalid. Petitioner's contention is untenable. The issu raised is not of first impression. In a long line of decisions {Pascual v. Comm. of Customs, 105 Phil. 1039; Acting Comm. of Customs v. Estanislao Leuterio, 106 Phil. 1162, unrep.; Comm. of Customs v. Serree Imvest- ment Co., 108 Phil. l; Co~ or Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading, G.R. No. ~1~279, October 31, 1961;' Comm. of Customs v. Santos, G.R. No. L-11911, Mareb 30, 1962; Comm. of Customs v. Nepomuceno, G.R. No. L-11126, March 31, 1962; Leuterio v. Comm. of Customs, G.R. No. L- 21800, June 22, 1968, and eases cited therein), our Highest Tribunal bas consistently upheld the validity of said Central Bank Circulars Nos. ~ and ~5 under the general grant of authority provided in Section 7~ ~ ot Republic Act No. 26S. Sinee it is not disputed that the two shipments were not covered by release certificates from the Cen- tral Bank or from any of its aQthorized agent banks, and that they were not accompanied by the required consular invoices, it follows that the forfeiture of

DEX:ISION - CTA CASE No. 736 the goods in question is proper. As regards the payment or the additional sum or ~500.00 as penalty proVided in each or tb.e two bonds, or a total penalty of ttl,ooo.oo, we haTe ruled in Que Hua. Shirt Factory vs. Commissioner of Customs, CTA Cases Nos. 739 & 753, January 11, 1962; Mendoza vs. �Aseron, CTA Case No. 852, June 17, 1963; Mapa vs. Commissioner of Customs, CTA Cases Nos. 893 & 89~, August 27, 1963; Lazatin vs. Commissioner or Customs, CTA Case No. 782, January 19, 19o2, affirmed in G.R. No. i-19753, JulY 30, 1969; and De la Cruz vs. Commissioner ot Customs, CTA Cases Nos. 980 and 1150, August 27, 1963, affirmed in� G.R. Nos. L-2333~ & 23lf-5l, -February 29, 1968, that a demand tor payment or the penalty pro'Yided in a bond cannot be enf'orced until a final judgment is rendered ordering forfeiture. In the present case, there is as yet no final judgment or forfeiture. ConsequentlY, :no liability tor said penalty has accrued under said bonds. WHEREFORE, tindi.ag no error in the decision ot respondent dated December 11, 1959, the same is here- by attirmed except with respect to the stipulated penalty. Petitioner is hereby ordered to pay to re- spondent Commissioner ot Customs or his authorized re- I

D:OCISION - CTA CASE No. 736 presentative the total amount ot P~/,952.15. With costs against petitioner Philippine International Surety eo., Inc. SO ORDERED. QUezon City, October 31, 1970. ROMAN M. UMALI Presiding Judge WE CONCURs u ' ,~<C{!~, r..'!oo..""'"t&.j"-1\liSLAO R. ALVAREZ Assoc1ate J\ldge 1'4--- I /.n___� RAMON L. AVANCENA .Associate Judge _