G.R. No. L-9810; April 27, 1957
ESTANISLAO LEUTERIO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent.

FACTS

On September 19, 1954, 100 crates of onions consigned to petitioner Estanislao Leuterio arrived at Manila from Kobe, Japan. On December 20, 1954, the Collector of Customs ordered the seizure and forfeiture of the onions for violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 in relation to section 1363(m)3, 4, and 5 of the Revised Administrative Code and Executive Order No. 328. Previously, on December 15, 1954, the Secretary of Finance had decreed the importation a violation of the Anti-Dumping Law because the consignee declared the price as $1.20 per crate instead of the actual $3.20, ordering payment of the difference, without prejudice to other actions under customs laws. Petitioner filed an action before the Court of Tax Appeals seeking annulment of the seizure and refund of amounts paid, arguing the expiration of the Import Control Law, the invalidity of the Central Bank Circulars and Executive Order No. 328, and that the importation was not prohibited by the Barter Trade Agreement with Japan. The Commissioner of Customs defended the seizure, asserting the validity of the Circulars and Executive Order, and that the undervaluation violated section 1363(m)3, 4, and 5. The Court of Tax Appeals held the seizure and confiscation could not be justified under the Central Bank Circulars (finding them null and void) or Executive Order No. 328, but was justified under section 1363(m)3, 4, and 5 due to gross undervaluation, and that while no customs duties were evaded, there was intent to evade the internal revenue tax collectible by customs officers.

ISSUE

Whether the seizure and forfeiture of the 100 crates of onions belonging to petitioner Estanislao Leuterio were in accordance with law.

RULING

Yes, the seizure and forfeiture were justified under section 1363(m)3, 4, and 5 of the Revised Administrative Code. The Court found that the petitioner submitted an import entry and other documents falsely declaring the value of the onions as $1.20 per crate when the actual market value was $3.20 per crate, constituting a wrongful declaration and false invoice under said provisions. The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the Commissioner of Customs did not invoke the National Internal Revenue Code as a defense, noting the answer expressly alleged violation of section 1363(m)3, 4, and 5. It also rejected the argument that the Internal Revenue Law does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs, holding that “Customs law” includes all laws and regulations subject to enforcement by the Bureau of Customs under section 1419 of the Revised Administrative Code. Finally, the Court held that the Secretary of Finance’s prior finding of a violation of the Anti-Dumping Law did not preclude action under the customs laws, as that decision expressly reserved such other actions. Without passing upon the validity of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, dismissing the appeal.