CTA Case No. 1459 (Decision)

.. :-;:, BIENVENIDO MAPA, C.T . A. CASE No. 14-59 Peti tioner, -versus- T .,. CO li SSIONEB OF CUSTOI<fS, Respondent. x- - - - - - - - - - -x DECISION This is an appeal from a decision of respondent dated ugust 18, 1963, affirming that of the Collect- or of Customs of the Port of ~~ila in Seizure Iden- tification No. 1931 decreeing the forfeiture of ten (10) cases of "Toothpicks (600) gross" in favor of the Government for violation of Central Bank Circulars os. ltlt & 4-5, in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code . On September 15, 1954-, petitioner imported from Hongkong per S/S "Talisman" ten (10) eases of "Tooth- picks (600) gross". The shipment was accompanied by the necessary shipping documents, but without the consular invoice and bank release certificate re- quired by Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 to 4-5. For violation of said Central Bank Circulars os. 44 & 4-5, the imported articles were ordered seized by the . Collector of Customs of Manila . Atter due hearing, t he Collector of Customs of �~nila held the subject importation liable to forfeiture under Section 1363(f)

DECISION - CTA CASE No. 1459 ,2 or t he Revised � Administrative Code for violation or Central Bank Circulars Nos�. 44 and 45. Inasmuch as the imported articles were already released under surety bond (PISC Customs Bond No . 124, dated Septem- ber 16, 1954) in the amount of ~6,66o.oo , petitioner I and surety were ordered to pay in cash, jointly and severally, to the Bureau of Customs the said amount within 30 days after receipt of the decision. The Commissioner of Customs, in his decision dated August 15, 1963, affirmed said decision of the Collector. Hence , this app eal. The only issue raised in t his case is whether or not Central Bank Circulars Nos. 41+ and 45 have been repealed by Central Bank Circular No. 133, and the liability incurred for violation thereof had abated. The same issue bas been passed upon and decided by the Highest Court in cases too numerous to mention. In the case of Andres E. Lazaro vs. the Commissioner or Customs, G. R. Nos. L-21790 & L-21794, December 24, 1965, it was held: "The issue of whether or not the im- portatio ns in cqkueosrt ion are su bject to for- feiture for la a Central Bank release certificate in violation of Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45 in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code bas already been answered in the arfirma- tive in previous cases involving similar facts.l We see no cogent reason to alter our previous rulings. 1s erree Investment Company v. Commissioner of Customs, L-21217, November 29, 1965 and cases cited therein.

DECISION - CTA CASE No. 1459 3 "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 Cir- cular 133 required imports to b e released only upon presentation of a release cer- tificate issued by the Central Bank. Not only that, Section 14 of Circular 44 which states: 114. 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 any authorized Agent Bank in a form prescribed by the Monetary Board.' was deemed incorporated to Circular 133 by virtue of ~aragraph 8 thereof which we quote hereundera2 18. All existing circulars, rules, regulations and conditions governing transactions in foreign exchange not inconsistent with the provisions of this Circular, are deemed incorporated hereto and made integral parts hereof by ref- erence.' W 11 ith 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, how- ever, That goods and commodities in transit or previously imported on a no-dollar remittance basis at the time of the approval of this Act shall not be affected by the opera- tion of this Act.� (Underscoring supplied) 2Bombay D~partment Store v. Commissioner of Customs, L-20489, June 22, 1965; Bombay Department Store v. Commissioner of Customs, L-20400, September 30, 1965.

DECISION - CT CASE No . 1459 4 Said goods had already been imported and declared forfeited by the Collect- or of Customs of Manila when Republic Act 1410 was enacted on September 10 , 1955. 11 (See als o Capulong v. Aseron, G. R. No . L-22989 , May 14, 1966; Andres E. Lazaro Vo Comm. of Customs , G,R. Nos. L 22511 & 22513, ay 16, 1966. ) WHEREFORE, finding no error in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed , with costs against petit� SO ORDERED. Quezon City, January 4, 1967. ROHAN 1-.f . UMALI Presiding Judge WE CONCUR: f tL- RAMON L. AV . CEN ssociate Judge _