G.R. No. L-10994 and L-11012, December 29, 1959
GOLAY-BUCHEL AND CIE, petitioner-appellee, vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

On January 25, 1952, a shipment of 220 packets of marcassite stones from Switzerland arrived at the Manila International Airport. The bill of lading consigned the shipment to the Philippine National Bank for the account of C.C. Abella of 1312 V. Benavidez, San Juan, Rizal. The consular and commercial invoices, however, showed C.C. Abella of the same address as the “purchaser and consignee.” The shipment was seized by customs authorities for lack of an import license in violation of Republic Act No. 650 (Import Control Law). Forfeiture proceedings were instituted, and notice of the hearing was served upon Abella and posted on the customhouse bulletin board. At the hearing, Abella denied being the person named in the documents and claimed no knowledge of the shipment or prior correspondence with the consignor, Golay-Buchel and Cie. The Collector of Customs, construing this as abandonment, ordered the forfeiture on November 22, 1952. Abella was furnished a copy, and another was posted. The decision was not appealed. The Commissioner of Customs reviewed the case motu proprio and affirmed the Collector’s decision on January 12, 1953. The record was then forwarded to the Board of Tax Appeals for review on January 19, 1953.
On April 1, 1953, Golay-Buchel & Cie. filed a “petition for review” with the Board of Tax Appeals, claiming it received an order from C.C. Abella for the marcassites in December 1951 and shipped them upon receiving a cablegram that an import license had been obtained. It alleged it was not notified of the seizure proceedings until March 14, 1953, and since Abella disclaimed knowledge, notice to him was not notice to the petitioner as owner. It sought reversal of the Commissioner’s decision and reshipment of the merchandise or a reopening of the proceedings. The Commissioner, in his answer, asserted the seizure was lawful and the decision final. Golay-Buchel later amended its petition, stating it had only received a notice from Abella that he had applied for a license and that the shipment was made due to an erroneous interpretation of that notice; upon being apprised of the mistake by Abella, it instructed the Philippine National Bank to have the goods reshipped.
The Board of Tax Appeals initially denied the petition but, upon reconsideration, suspended its decision and directed the Commissioner to order the Collector of Customs to reopen the case to hear evidence from the petitioner or the Philippine National Bank. At the reopened hearing, petitioner presented evidence including a letter from Abella dated December 13, 1951, stating a license had been applied for; a letter from Abella dated February 1, 1952, denying he ordered or instructed any shipment; and a telegram to “Please stop shipment Abella.” Abella testified and identified other documents. On February 4, 1954, the Collector of Customs, finding no material new evidence, reiterated the forfeiture. The Commissioner affirmed on appeal. Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Court of First Instance of Manila, which was forwarded to the Court of Tax Appeals.
On June 3, 1956, the Court of Tax Appeals reversed the Commissioner’s decision and ordered the release of the stones to petitioner for reshipment, subject to regulations. It held that the Commissioner’s review of the Collector’s decision did not require an appeal under section 1381 of the Revised Administrative Code since no claimant appeared within 10 days after seizure. It further ruled that the decision of the Collector had not become final by June 30, 1953, when the Import Control Law expired, and, following an opinion of the Under Secretary of Justice, forfeiture proceedings under that law abated upon its expiration, divesting customs authorities of jurisdiction.
The Commissioner of Customs filed a petition for review (G.R. No. L-10994), contending the Collector’s decision of November 22, 1952, had become final before the law expired. Golay-Buchel & Cie. also filed a petition (G.R. No. L-11012), assigning as error the court’s failure to consider evidence that the shipment was made by mistake. The cases were consolidated.

ISSUE

1. Whether the expiration of Republic Act No. 650 (Import Control Law) divested the customs authorities of jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceedings and rendered the seizure and forfeiture illegal or null and void.
2. Whether the forfeiture proceedings were valid despite the alleged lack of notice to the true owner, Golay-Buchel & Cie.
3. Whether the evidence established that the marcassites were shipped to the Philippines by mistake.

RULING

1. No, the expiration of the Import Control Law did not divest jurisdiction or legalize the illegal importation. Citing Roxas vs. Sayoc, the Court held that the expiration of Republic Act No. 650 did not produce the effect of declaring legal an importation that was illegally made while the law was in force. Once the Commissioner of Customs acquired jurisdiction over the case while the law was still effective, the mere expiration of the law did not divest him of that jurisdiction. Therefore, the forfeiture proceedings were not rendered null and void by the law’s expiration.
2. Yes, the forfeiture proceedings were valid. The Court found that C.C. Abella was duly notified of the seizure and forfeiture proceedings. Under section 1375 of the Revised Administrative Code, the importer is considered the “owner” of the merchandise for purposes of forfeiture. Abella, as the named purchaser and consignee in the invoices and the party for whose account the shipment was consigned, was the importer and thus the “owner” entitled to notice. Since he was properly notified and did not appeal the Collector’s decision of November 22, 1952, that decision became final and executory, following the rule in Sy Man vs. Jacinto, et al. The notice to Abella was sufficient, and the petitioner’s intervention more than a year after the proceedings, despite earlier knowledge through the Philippine National Bank, did not invalidate the proceedings.
3. No, the evidence did not establish that the shipment was made by mistake. The Court was not convinced by petitioner’s claim of mistake or inadvertence. The evidence showed Abella’s letter of December 13, 1951, indicating he had applied for a license for the marcassites, and the subsequent cablegram that prompted the shipment suggested instructions were given. Abella’s subsequent cable and letter asking to stop the shipment and claiming mistake, along with the Philippine National Bank’s knowledge of his denial as early as February 1952, were noted. However, petitioner’s delay of over a year before intervening in the seizure proceedings undermined its claim. The Court concluded the marcassites were not shipped by mistake.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is reversed. The decision of the Commissioner of Customs declaring the forfeiture of the importation in favor of the Government is affirmed. No costs.