CTA Case No. 847 (Decision)

BIENVENIDO CAPULONG, CTA CASE No. 81+7 Petitioner, -versus- THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent. x~ ~ - - - - ~ - - ~ - ~x DECISION This is an appeal from the decision of respond- ent dated March 10, 1960, ordering petitioner and his surety to pay, jointly and severally, the total amount or Pl2, 5'32. oo. This case was submitted on a parti~ stipulation ot facts as follows: u1. That the petitioner is a nat- ural person, of legal age, and a resi- dent of No. 1138 Q~ezon Boulevard, Ma- nila, while the respondent is the duly qual1fied Cammissioner BofurCeauustoomfsc1 uws-ith offices located at the toms , Manila; 112. That on October 2, 1951+, the petitioner imported trom Hongkong into the Philippines 63 packages or various merchandise declared under Entry No. 78008, Series of 1951+ and covered by a Bill of Lading, Commercial Invoice and otfieial. Receipt evidencing payment of customs duties and sales taxes; ''3� Tbat this importation was not covered by -any t.port license and Re- lease Certificate from the Central Bank and was consequently seized by the Col- lector of Customs of the Port or Manila under Seizure Identification No. 2025' for alleged violation of the Central Bank Circulars ~ and q.5 in relation to Section l363(f) of the Revised Admi- nis trative Code;

DECISION - CTA CASE No. 847 - 2- *'1+. Tbat during the pendency of the seizure proceeding, the above-mentioned shipment was, however, released and de- livered to the petitioner under Surety Bond No. 093 in the sum ot 1!12,~32.00, posted by the Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation; "5. Tbat the value or the said shipment is f+,lt-33.00, and the importa- tion was eftecued through the no-dollar remittance system; 116. Tbat on March 10, 1960 the respondent rendered judgment in !he �bove-mentioned Seizure Identification No. 2025, the dispositive portion of which reads: 'WHEREFORE, by authority or Section 1380 of the Revised Ad- mt oi nSiesct rt iaot inv3e7C02odoe r i nt h er e Tl aatri oi fnf and Customs Code or the Philip- pines, it appearing that the subject mercl~ise were re- leased to the claimant under Surety Bond No. 093 or the " Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corpor aTtHioOUn1~AwNDi th a value or TWELVE FIVE HUNDRED TiHt IRiTsYhTeWreOby(�.1o2ra1 532. 00), PESOS, ered that the said bond be, as the same is hereby contiscatedi and the I principal, Bienven do Capulong, aInssuwrealnlcaesanthdeSsuureretytyc1 Pione er orpora - tion, are hereby ordered, join'tly and severally, to pay in cash the atore-sta.ted amount to the Bureau ot Cas toras w1thin thirty (30) days from receipt or a copy or this decision in accordance with the terms of 1 the said bond.'" / Petitioner assails the decision or respondent

DECISION - CTA CASE No . Slt-7 - 3- on the gr und that Central Bank Circulars Nos. lt-lt- and lt-5, upon which the forfeiture of the goods is based, ba-. been repealed by Circular No. 133, thereby extinguishing the liability arising tro the alleged violation of the former circulars. The lone issue presented tor our determina- tion is' Whether or not the confiscation of the bond filed in the seizure proceedings based on Central Bank Circulars Nos � 44 and lt-5 is law- ful. This question is not new. In a long line of cases, this Court sustained the legality of forfeiture under C ntral Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and lt-5 and ruled that the liability arising from the taportations in violation thereof has not been abated. This Court held tbatz 11Moreover, even granting A'=. fiuendo, that Central Bank Circular o. ~ has been repealed by Cir- cular No. e13u3nd1 etrh e v alidity of the forfe i tur th e old cir cu lar is not affected by its repeal, the merchandis in question having been imported illegally while it is still in force. The expiration of Central Bank Circular No. lt4 did not have the effect ot le- galizing an importation or goods which was illegal at the time of importation. " (See Litton & Co., Inc. v. Commissioner or Customs, C.T�� Case No. 78lf.l October 30, 1963 and cases c ted therein).

DECISION - CTA CASE No . 8lf7 - 4- WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against petition r. SO ORDERED. Manila, February 15, 1964. WE CONCUR: ROMAM M. UMALI Associate JUdge