GR 21790; (December, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21790 and L-21794 December 24, 1965
ANDRES E. LAZARO, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent.
FACTS
On various dates in August, September, and October 1954, shipments of fish fins, foodstuffs, candies, and shrimps consigned to Andres E. Lazaro arrived in Manila from Hongkong. The Collector of Customs of Manila instituted seizure proceedings against these importations due to the lack of a Central Bank release certificate required by Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45. The goods were released to Lazaro under surety bonds. For the seizure proceedings, the Collector appraised the goods’ value by using their invoice value and adding arrastre, hauling, brokerage, stamps, bank charges, and an estimated 30% profit, pursuant to Section 1377 of the Revised Administrative Code. The amounts of the surety bonds were based on this appraisal. The Collector of Customs later declared the goods forfeited and ordered Lazaro to pay a total sum. This decision was affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs and subsequently by the Court of Tax Appeals. Lazaro appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
1. Whether the importations may be seized and forfeited for lack of a Central Bank release certificate.
2. Whether Republic Act 1410 and Central Bank Circular 133 repealed Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45, thereby abating liability incurred under them.
3. Whether the 30% estimated profits should be considered part of the appraised value of the importations for seizure proceedings.
RULING
1. Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed its previous rulings that importations are subject to forfeiture for lack of the required Central Bank release certificate in violation of Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45 in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code.
2. No. Central Bank Circular 133 did not repeal Circulars 44 and 45 regarding the necessity of a release certificate. Paragraph 6 of Circular 133 itself required a release certificate, and paragraph 8 incorporated existing circulars not inconsistent with it. Republic Act 1410 did not abate the liability because Section 3 of the Act expressly provided that goods previously imported at the time of the Act’s approval were not affected. The goods in question had already been imported and declared forfeited before the enactment of Republic Act 1410.
3. Yes. For the appraisal of importations in connection with seizure proceedings, Section 1377 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that the appraisement shall be at the property’s value in the local market. This differs from Rule 13(a) of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909, which governs appraisal for determining customs duties. The inclusion of the 30% estimated profit was proper under Section 1377. Furthermore, Lazaro acquiesced to this inclusion, as the amounts of the surety bonds he posted were based on the appraisal that included the estimated profit, creating a contractual obligation.
The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals was affirmed.