CTA Case No. 867 (Decision)

I Republic of the Philippines COURT ' OF TAX APPEALS Manila BIENVENJJ)O CAPULONG , c. T. A. Petitioner , CASE NOo 867 - versus -:- ACTING 00Nlli1ISSIONER GF CUSTOMS , Respondent. X X- � --- - ----~ DEC I S I 0 N This is an appeal from the decision of respond- ent Commissioner of Customs affirming that of the Col- lector of Customs of Manila which decreed the forfei- ture of thirteen packages of salted fish and ham im- ported by petitioner sometime in 1954. The facts of the case are stated in the stipulation of facts sub- mitted by the parties , the pertinent portions of which are as follows: 1. That the petitioner is of legal age , married , Filipino , and a resident of No. 1138 Quezon Boulevard , Manila , while respondent is the duly qualified Acting Commissioner of Customs with offices � located at the Bureau of Customs Build- ing, Port Area, Manila; 2. That on October 15 , 1954 , the petitioner imported from Hongkong into the Philippines thirteen (13) packages of salted fish in bulk and hams which were declared under Import Entry No. 81851 , Series of 1954; 3. That the above-mentioned mer- chandise was covered by a Bill of Lading , Commercial Invoice and t wo (2) official receipts , evidencing payment of customs duties and sales tax amounting to t-931.17; 4. That the value of the above mer- chandise was $3 , 106.50, which importation was effected thru the no-dollar remittance

DECISION - C.T.A. CASE NO. 867 2- system; 5. That the above merchandise was the subject of Seizure Identification No~ 2067, instituted by the respondent and/or his duly authorized representative for failure of the petitioner to produce the import license and Central Bank Release Certificate covering the subject merchan- dise as required by Central Bank Circu- lars Nos . 44 and 45, in relation to Sec- tion 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code; 6. That the above-mentioned shipment was , however , released and delivered to the petitioner under Surety Bond No. 117, in the amount of f8 , 448. 00 , of the Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation , posted by the petitioner and the said surety corp- oration; 7. That on June 2 , 1960 , respondent rendered judgment in the above-mentioned Seizure Identification No. 2067 , the dis- positive portion of which reads as follows: �WHEREFORE , by authority of Section 1380 of the Revised Administrative Code in relation to Section 3702 of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philip- pines , it appearing that the subject merchandise were released - to the claimant under Surety Bond No. 117 (1954) of the Pioneer In- surance &Surety Corporation , with a value of EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT (i8 , 448. - 00) PESOS, it is hereby ordered that the said bond be, as the same is hereby confiscated; and the principal , Bienvenido Capulong, as well as the surety , Pioneer Insurance &Surety Corporation , are hereby ordered , jointly and severally , to pay in cash the afore-stated amount to the Bureau of Customs within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy of this decision in accordance with the terms of the said bond.� (See PP� 20-21, C. T.A. records . ) It is admitted that the goods in question were imported in violation of Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 of the

DECISION ... C.T.A. CASE NO. 867 -3 - Central Bank and that t~ey are subject to forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Administrative Code (now Section 2530(f) , Tariff & Customs Code). It is, however, contended that with the promulgation of Central Bank Circular No. 133, all actions and proceedings involving forfeiture of goods for violation of Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 which have not been reduced to final judgment are deemed abrogated. The question has already been resolved by this Court. We have consistently held that Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 were not repealed by Circular No. 133 , and that even if they were repealed , the legality of the forfeiture proceeding under the old circulars is not af- fected by their subsequent repeal. This is so because the expiration or repeal of said circulars did not have the effect of legalizing an importation of goods which was illegal at the time of importation. (See Litton & Co. , Inc. v. Com. of Customs, C.T . A. No. 784, Oct. 30 , 1963, and cases cited therein. ) WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Manila, February 24, 1964. .ROMAN M. UMALI Associate Judge 1 WE CONCURS RIAOO NABLE r/J~~ Judge Vv