G.R. No. L-22512 & G.R. No. L-22514 December 22, 1967
ANDRES E. LAZARO, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent.

FACTS

On August 31, 1954, a shipment of candies, dried shrimps, and celluloid combs consigned to petitioner Andres E. Lazaro arrived at Manila. The goods were seized for lack of the Central Bank release certificate required under Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. The goods were released to Lazaro on September 4, 1954, upon posting a surety bond for P4,822.00, which amount was based on the appraised value of the goods by the Bureau of Customs, including an estimated profit of 30% of the landed cost. The Collector of Customs decreed the forfeiture of the goods and, as they had been released, ordered Lazaro to pay their value in cash. This decision was affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs, who ordered the confiscation of the bond and payment by Lazaro and his surety. The Court of Tax Appeals affirmed this decision. Lazaro filed two petitions for review with the Supreme Court, which were consolidated.

ISSUE

1. Whether Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code is applicable to the importation.
2. Whether Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 authorize the forfeiture of goods imported in violation thereof.
3. Whether said circulars were repealed by Central Bank Circular No. 133 or Republic Act No. 1410 , thereby abating any liability for their violation.
4. Whether the appraised value for forfeiture should be based on the value at the place of origin or the local market value, and whether the inclusion of a 30% estimated profit is proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals.
1. Applicability of Section 1363(f): The importation without the required Central Bank release certificate violated Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, making the goods subject to seizure and forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, which covers articles of prohibited importation.
2. Authority for Forfeiture: The forfeiture was authorized under the cited laws and circulars.
3. Non-Repeal of Circulars: Central Bank Circular No. 133 did not repeal Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 regarding the necessity of a release certificate; in fact, it incorporated the requirement. Republic Act No. 1410 did not abate liabilities incurred for violations of Circular No. 45, as its Section 3 explicitly exempted goods in transit or previously imported on a no-dollar remittance basis at the time of its approval.
4. Appraised Value for Forfeiture: For seizure proceedings, the appraised value is the value in the local market, pursuant to Section 1377 of the Revised Administrative Code, not the market value in the country of origin under the Tariff Act. The inclusion of the 30% estimated profit as part of the appraised value was proper, as Lazaro acquiesced to this valuation when he posted the surety bond based on that amount, making it a contractual obligation.
The Court held that these issues had already been settled adversely to the petitioner’s contentions in a prior case involving the same petitioner (Lazaro vs. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. Nos. L-21790 and L-21794, December 24, 1965). Costs were imposed on the petitioner.