G.R. No. L-22515, April 27, 1967
EXTENSIVE ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Extensive Enterprises Corporation imported nine (9) cases of rubber balloons and twelve (12) cases of rubber nipples into the Port of Manila on November 27, 1954. The customs entry was accompanied by a Central Bank release certificate specifying only “rubber nipples” under Code No. 620915 EC. Consequently, the Bureau of Customs released the twelve cases of rubber nipples but seized the nine cases of rubber balloons (falling under a different code, No. 890949 NEC) on the ground that they were imported without the required release certificate, in violation of Central Bank Circular Nos. 44 and 45, in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. The claimant sought release under bond, filing a cash bond of P2,769.00. The seizure was decided adversely against the importer, ordering the forfeiture of the nine cases of rubber balloons. The Court of Tax Appeals affirmed the Commissioner of Customs’ forfeiture order. Petitioner contests the validity of the forfeiture, arguing Circular Nos. 44 and 45 were null and void or had been repealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether Central Bank Circular Nos. 44 and 45 were repealed by Republic Act 1410 and/or by Circular No. 133.
2. Whether the repeal of said Circulars would abate liabilities incurred thereunder.
3. Whether an estimated profit of 30% of the landed cost should be included in fixing the appraised value of the forfeited importation.
4. Whether Section 34 of Republic Act 265 (The Central Bank Act) applies, instead of the penal provision of Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code.

RULING

1. No, Circular Nos. 44 and 45 were not repealed. The Court ruled that Circular Nos. 44 and 45, insofar as they require release certificates from the Central Bank, were not repealed by Circular No. 133 but were incorporated into it. Republic Act 1410 does not apply because Section 3 of said Act provides that goods in transit or previously imported under a no-dollar remittance basis at the time of the Act’s approval are not affected. The violation occurred in 1954, prior to the effectivity of Republic Act 1410.
2. Not applicable, as the Circulars were not repealed. However, the Court implied that liabilities incurred under valid regulations prior to any repeal are not automatically abated.
3. Yes, the inclusion of a 30% estimated profit is justified. The appraisal of importations for seizure proceedings is governed by Section 1377 of the Revised Administrative Code, which bases the assessment on the value of the goods “in the local market.” This includes the estimated profit the merchandise would bring to the importer, unlike appraisal for customs duties which follows the Tariff Act.
4. No, Section 34 of Republic Act 265 does not preclude forfeiture under Section 1363(f). While the Central Bank Act prescribes specific penalties for its violations, Circular Nos. 44 and 45, having been validly issued, have the force of law. An importation made in violation of these circulars falls under “merchandise of prohibited importation” or importation “contrary to law,” making it a proper subject for forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code.
The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals affirming the forfeiture was affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.