CTA Case No. 893 (Decision)

Republic of the Philippines COURT OF TAX APPEALS MANilA BIENVENII~) MAPA, C.T.A. CASES I Petitioner, NOS. 893 & 894 - versus - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - � X DECISION The above-entitled cases arose from two sep- arate decisions of the Commissioner of Customs decreeing the forfeiture of the bonds filed for the release of various merchandise imported by pe- titioner, Bienvenido Mapa , and ordeDing the latter and his sureties to pay , jointly and severally, in cash to the Bureau of Customs the amounts of the bonds filed by them. The two cases were tried jointly .by agreement of t he pa rties involving as they do the same parties and analogous issues. Petitioner is the claimant of imported mer- chandise described in Seizure Identification No. 1869 and Seizure Identification Nos . 1716 to 1722, to wit: Six ~) Packages Cakes Eight If Vermicelli Two One 2 ll Shark's Fin Seven Six 1 tl Bird 's Nest Two One 7 It Vermicelli One Five 6 II Album Six 2 tt Office Supplies 1 tl Toys 1 f1 Sieves 5 !1 Rattan Split 6 " Tooth Pick (360 Gross ) These importations were not covered by release cer- tificates issued by the Central Bank or any of its (

DECISION - C. T. A. CASE NO. 893 & 894 -2 agent banks. Consequently , seizure proceedings were instituted, but during their pendency , the articles were released to the claimant under PISC Surety Bond No. 031 issued by the Pioneer Insurance Surety Corporation in the amount of 523.00 and under PSIC Surety Bonds Nos. 54/4310 to 54/4316, inclusive , issued by Paramount Surety and Insur- ance Co. , Inc. in the total amount of Pl3,,879. 00 , the conditions of which read as followss �NO~THEREFORE, the conditions of this OQligation are such that in the event that it should be finally decided that the merchandise herein mentioned should be forfeited to the Government , and/or that a f i.ne or surcharge should be imposed , the entire amount of this bond , in case of forfeiture, or sur- charge . as the case may be , shall be paid IN CASH to the Bureau of Customs , PROVIDED , HOWEVER , that if within thir- ty (30) days from demand for payment of the liability herein mentioned the said liability is not paid , and it should be found necessary to file an action in court to effect the collection thereof a penalty of FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (t500.00) in addition shall be imposed, otherwise. this obligation shall be void and of no effect.� After due hearing, the Acting Collector of Customs ordered their forfeiture for viola- tion of Central Bank Circulars Nos . 44 and 45 , in relation to Section 136~(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. From the orders of forfeiture of the Act- ing Collector of Customs, petitioner appealed

DECISION: - CTA Cases Nos . 893 & 894 . - 3- to the Ac ting Commissioner of Customs who affirmed the same . Hence , the petitions for review in the above- entitled cases . In his answers to the peti- tions, r~spondent seeks the payment , jointly and severally, by petitioner and his sur eties of the amounts of the bonds filed by them and the addi- tional sum of ~500 . 00 for each case by way of damages . The main issue to be de cided in these cases is whether or not the seizure and forfeiture pro- \. ceedings are in order . Petitioner assails the validity of the for- feiture proceedings on the ground that Central Bank Circulars Nos . 44 and 45 have been repealed by Central Ban1c Circular liTo . 133. In the cases of Andres E. La zaro v. Commissioner of Customs, CTA Nos . 833 & 834, June 14, 1963, citing the cases of Golay Buchel & Cie v. Commissioner of Customs , G'.R . No . L-10994, 11012, Dec. 29, 1959; Leonor Roxas v. Sayoc, G. R. No . L-6502, Nov. 29, 1956, we held ; n11oreover, even granting ar~uendo that Central Bank Circular No . 4 has been repealed by Circular No. 133, the validity of the forfeiture under the old circular is not affected by its repeal, the merchandise in question having been imported illegally while it was still in -force. The expiration of Central Bank Circular No. 44 did not have the effect of legalizing an importation of goods which was illegal ' at the time of impor- tation. u

DECISION:- CTA Cases � Nos . 893 & 894. - 4- Anent the claim for damages, we heid in similar cases that a demand for payment of the amount covered by the bond cannot legally � be made until there is a final judgment ordering forfeiture (See Que Hua Shirt Factory v . Com- missioner of Customs., CTA. Nos. 739 and 753, Jan. 11, 1962; Angela S. Lazatin v. Commis- of Customs, CTA No. 782, Jan. 19, 1962) . \mEREFORE , the decisions appealed from are hereby affirmed ill toto, with costs against petitioner. SO CRDE~. Manila, August 27, 1963. I CONCUR: RO:t-1AN M. trMALI Associate J�udge {; \