G.R. No. L-22516 August 17, 1967
LITTON AND CO., INC., petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Litton & Co., Inc. applied with the Central Bank to import 18 bales of “cotton textile woven with dyed yarn” under a specific commodity category and code. The Central Bank approved the application and issued a release certificate. Upon the shipment’s arrival in Manila in August 1956, the Bureau of Customs found it actually consisted of 18 bales of “handkerchief cloth without unwoven spaces,” a different commodity category. The goods were seized and placed under forfeiture proceedings for violating Central Bank Circular 44. The goods were released under a surety bond in the amount of P8,472.36, which represented the appraised local market value calculated by adding 30% estimated profit to the landed cost. The Collector of Customs found the merchandise liable for forfeiture. The Commissioner of Customs ordered the confiscation of the bond and payment of the bond amount. The Court of Tax Appeals affirmed this order.

ISSUE

1. Whether the repeal of Central Bank Circular 44 by Circular 133 abated the liability for forfeiture.
2. Whether the appraised value of the merchandise for the bond should have been determined under the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909 (for customs duties) instead of under the Revised Administrative Code (for seizure proceedings).
3. Whether Section 34 of Republic Act 265 (the Central Bank Act), which provides for criminal penalties, applies to the exclusion of the forfeiture proceedings under the Revised Administrative Code.

RULING

1. No. The repeal of Circular 44 by Circular 133 did not abate the forfeiture liability. Even assuming a repeal occurred, it did not legalize an importation made illegally prior to the repeal.
2. No. The appraised value was correctly determined under Section 1377 of the Revised Administrative Code, which governs the appraisal of importations in connection with seizure proceedings. The method under the Tariff Act of 1909 (Rule 13(a)) applies to the appraisal for determining customs duties, which is not the purpose here.
3. No. Section 34 of Republic Act 265, which imposes criminal penalties for violations of Central Bank regulations, is applicable to the criminal liability of the persons responsible. It does not exclude the seizure and forfeiture proceedings against the imported merchandise under the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code. Both proceedings can proceed independently. The Collector of Customs should apprise the City Fiscal for appropriate criminal prosecution.
The decision appealed from is affirmed.