CTA Case No. 938 (Decision)

REPUBLI C 9F THE PHIL!PPINES OOURT OF TAX APPEALS MANILA SERRE� INVESTMENT CXliv1P. NY , C. T�� � . PE!titi oner , W.SES NOS . 938 .- - versus - & 939 COlvlJ\USS IONEH OF CUST0!,1S , Res :)ondent . X- - - - - - - - - - - X DECISION The above-entitled cases both relate to import - ations made by petitioner which were o~dered forfeit- ed by the Collector of Custo~s of Manila for viola- tion of CiTculars Nos . 44 and 45 of the Central Bank , in r e l~tion to Section l363(f) of the Admi nistrative Code. On aopeal to the Commissioner of Customs , the orders of forfeiture were affirmed , hence the appeal to this Court by petitioner. I n C. T�� No. 938 , petitioner i mported from Hong- kong 34 packages containing melon seeds and 3 cases containing paper lanterns. s the said shipments were not covered by any release certificate issued by the Central Bank as required by Circulars Nos . 44 and 45 of said Bank , seizure proceedings were instituted for the forfeiture of said goods b virtue of Section 1363 (f) of the Jdministrative Code . Pending sei zure proceedings , the goods were released to petitioner upon the filing of the necessary surety bonds. for the sums of ~ 7, 675 . 73 , ~18 , 300 . 00 and ~960 . 00 . fter hear - ing , the Collector of Customs of Manila decreed the forfeiture of the goods and ordered oetitioner and the

DECISION - C. I . A. C/.:3ES NOS . 938 & 939 -2- sureties to ~ay the aforesaid amounts , j ointly and severally. I n C. T. f . No . 939 , petitioner imported from Hongkong 75 packages of garlic . This importation was not also covered by a release certificate issued by the Central Bc:,nk as required b Circulars Nos . 44 and 45 , for which reason seizure proceedings were in - stituted pursuant to Section l363 (f) of the ,dmini s- trative Code . ending the sei zure proceedings , the goods were sold at public auction to avoid loss by deterioration . rfter hearing , the goods were ordered forfeited and the proceeds of the sale accounted for as customs receipt. Petitioner questions the legality of the for- feiture of the aforesaid importations on three grounds , vi z: (1) that the Centra l Bank has no power to regu - late importations which. do not invo lve sales of fo r - eign exchange ; 2 ) that Central Bank Circulars Nos . 44 and 45 are invalid for not having been 9romulgated in accordance with RepGblic ct No . 265 ; and (3) that said circulars of the Central Bank do not authorize the institution of seizure and forfeiture oroceedings in case of violation thereof . The questions raised by petitioner are not newq I n several cases decided by the Supreme Court , the latest of which is Pascual v . Commissioner , G. R. No . L- 12219 , pril ?5, ~962 , the same arguments were re - je cte d as unt enab le ~ Therefo~e , that the Central Bank l,as authority to regulate importations which do not

- o~cis~on C. T . , � C E ' JOS � 938 and 939 -3- invo~ve the sale of fore i gn exchange ; that Circulars Nos . 44 aQd 45 have been validly promulgated; anc that goods imported in violation of said circulars are subject to seizure and forfeiture , are not now open to ques .on . ' cR~. 0?� , the decisions appealed from ~here by affirmed , wi th costs against petitioner. ( ' 0 OR ERJD ~aPila , ugust 13 , 1962. ~~ 1� I 1 AB E residing Judge