CTA Case No. 752 (Decision)
1"1J11'Llt; OJ< . 'l"fil'!. t'tHLi',.VI '" ,,,. " T () 'AX APPE.A.U. ~ F. SARE ENTERPRISES, C.T.A. CASE NO. 7$2 Petitionel', - versus �- � COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent. X- - - - - - - - � - - - X . DECISION This is an appeal from the decision 0� the respondent atfirming an order of the Collector of Customs of ~anila decrieinl the forfeiture of certain shipments of merchandise imported by the petitioner sometime in 19~. The facts of the case, as stipula- ted by the parties, are as follows: 2o That the petitioner in the month of December, 19~, imported into the Phil- ippines, the following to wit: (a) 73 packages of various mer- chandise declared under Entry No. 97263, covered by a Bill of Lading, Commercial Invoice and 0/R Nos. 65893 and 6617~, under which pay- ments of customs duties and Inter- nal Revenue taxes were made as con- signed to the petitioner; (b) 122 packages of various mer- chandise declared under Entry No. 98788, covered by a Bill of Lading, Commercial Invoice and 0/R Nos. . 66816 and 66970 under which pay- ments of customs duties and Inter- nal Revenue taxes were made as eon- signed to the petitioner; (e) 10 packages of smoke ham in bulk packages declared under Entry Noo 98787 covered by a Bill of Lading, Commercial Invoice and 0/R Nos. 66817 and 67137 under which payments of ctts- toms duties and Internal Revenue taxes were made as consigned to the petitioner.
i' DECISION � C.T.A. CASE NO. 772 3e That the 'above-mentioned ship- ments were the subject of Seizure Iden- tification Nos. 2230 and 2278, for seizure and forfeiture instituted by the respondent and/or his duly authorized representative for the failure of the petitioner to pro- duce the Central Bank Release Certificate covering the subject shipments as required by Central Bank Circular Nos. ~ and ~7, in relation to Section 1363-t of the Re- vised Administrative Code; ~. That the above-mentioned ship- ments were, however, released and deli- vered to tne petitioner under Surety Bonds PISCI Nos. 207, 199, and 207, in the respective amounts of Pll,?60.oo, P11,~7SoOO and P.l0,3~.oo of the Pioneer Insurance &Surety Corporation, posted by the petitioner and the said surety corporation; 7. That on December 14, 1in979t~e the above- respondent rendered judgment mentioned Seizure Identificat.ion Nos � 2230, 2252 and 2258 ordering the petitioner as ~ell as the surety, Pioneer Insurance & urety Corporation to jointly and several- ly pay in cash to the Bureau ot Customs within thirty (30) days from notice of jud,ment the full amounts of the bonds posted therein, namely and respectively, P11,76o.oo, P11,475~oo and f10,3~.oo; 6. That on January 21, 1962 t the Mon- etary Board of the Central Bank duly con- vened and under authority of law issued Circular No. 133. The sole issue presented relates to the legal- ity of the forfeiture of the merchandise in question. It is alleged on behalf of peti'tioner that although the forfeiture mi~ht have been valid under Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 of the Central Bank, the subsequent issuance by said Bank of' Circular No. 133, which al- legedl�./repealed said Circulars Nos. ~ and 47, has the effect of nullifying the forfeiture proceedings. In Andres E. Lazaro v. Commissioner of Customs,
DECISION .. C.T.A. CASE NO. 752 - 3- C.T.A. Nos . 833-834-, J\Ule llt, 1963, it was held: Moreover~ even granting ar~e~Q that Central Dank Circular Noo � as been repealed� by Circular No . l33, the validity of the forfeiture under the old circular is not affected b.Y its re- peal, the merchandise in que~tion having been imported illegally wbile it was still in force . The ex~fration of Cen- tral Bank Circular No. "t"t did not have the effect of legalizing an imporation of goods which was illegal at the time of importation (Golav. Bucbel and Cie . vs . Commissioner of ~ustoms, G. R. No. L-10994-, 11012 , December 29, 19&9; leonora Roxas vs . Sa.yoc , G. R. o. L-6502, November 29, 1956) . WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is af- firmed in ~t with costs against petitioner. SO CRDERED. Manila, July 3, 1963 . ROMAN M. UMALI Associate Judge I CONCUR:
More in CTA Decisions
- PROCTER & GAMBLE INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS SA ROHQ v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE (CONSOLIDATED WITH CTA CASE NO. 9526)(CTA Case No. 9485)
- ACCENTURE INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 7387)
- CTA Case No. 4699 (Decision)(CTA Case No. 4699)
- SC JOHNSON PHILIPPINES, ROHQ v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 9357)
- COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. APO CEMENT CORPORATION(CTA Case No. EB 552)
- PROCTER & GAMBLE INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS SA-ROHQ v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. EB 2768)
- PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. 10914)
- UPSI PROPERTY HOLDINGS, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE(CTA Case No. EB 1968)
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.