G.R. No. L-20460 September 30, 1965
BOMBAY DEPARTMENT STORE, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Bombay Department Store imported a case of merchandise in 1954. Upon customs examination, the shipment was found to contain 239 dozens of nylon socks, 25 dozens of nylon stockings, and 29,715 rayon labels, appraised at P3,627.80. However, the accompanying documents declared only 124 dozens of nylon socks and 112.5 dozens of nylon stockings, covered by Central Bank Release Certificate No. 840112. Thus, the shipment contained 115 dozens of undeclared nylon socks and 29,715 undeclared rayon labels, although it had a shortage of 87.5 dozens of declared nylon stockings. The entire shipment was held for seizure proceedings for violating Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, in relation to Sections 1250 and 1363(f) and (m)-3 and 4 of the Revised Administrative Code. Subsequently, the merchandise was released to petitioner upon filing a bond (No. 1873) from First National Surety & Assurance Co., Ltd., in the amount of P3,627.80, conditioned on payment if forfeiture is finally decided. The Collector of Customs decreed the forfeiture of the bond and ordered petitioner and the surety to pay P3,627.80 jointly and severally. This decision was affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs and the Court of Tax Appeals.

ISSUE

1. Whether Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 are null and void.
2. Whether these circulars were impliedly repealed by Central Bank Circular No. 133.
3. Whether the Central Bank Act provides for the forfeiture of articles imported without the requisite certificate.
4. Whether the Commissioner of Customs has authority to seize and decree forfeiture of the merchandise.
5. Whether there was misdeclaration or wrongful declaration of the shipment.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court upheld the authority of the Central Bank to issue Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 and their legality, citing previous jurisprudence.
2. Central Bank Circular No. 133 did not repeal Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 by implication. Circular No. 133 similarly requires a release certificate and incorporates existing circulars not inconsistent with it.
3. The merchandise imported in violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 acquired the status of “merchandise of prohibited importation” under Section 1363(f) and (m)-3 and 4 of the Revised Administrative Code, making it subject to forfeiture proceedings.
4. The Commissioner of Customs has jurisdiction over forfeiture cases, which are proceedings in rem, and this jurisdiction is not lost by the expiration of Republic Act No. 650, as held in prior cases.
5. Petitioner’s wrongful and fraudulent intent is clear from its failure to prove the consignor’s inadvertence, its failure to re-export the undeclared goods, and its act of securing their release, thereby confirming the shipper’s acts. Fraud attaches to the goods, permitting forfeiture even if the consignee is innocent.
The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals was affirmed.