LITTON & CO., INC., PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENT.

 Litton & Co., Inc.
applied with the Central Bank to import 18 bales of “cotton textile woven with
dyed yarn” classified under Commodity Category NEP and Code No.
650206.  The application was approved and
the corresponding release certificate was issued by the Central Bank.

In August 1956 the shipment applied for arrived in the port
of Manila on board SS “Koten Maru“.  Upon exa­mination by the Bureau of Customs,
it was however found to consist of 18 bales of “handkerchief cloth without
un­woven spaces” falling under Commodity Category UI and Code No. 650217
which is different from “cotton textile woven with dyed yarn”.  Forthwith the goods were placed under seizure
and forfeiture proceedings (Seizure Iden­tification No. 5240) for violation of
Central Bank Cir­cular 44.  Meanwhile,
the goods were released under a bond posted by Central Surety and Insurance Co.
in the amount of P8,472.36.  Said amount
which represents the appraised local market value of the imported articles was
arrived at by adding to the landed cost 30% estima­ted profit following
precedents.

After hearing the parties, the Collector of Customs of Manila
found the merchandise liable for forfeiture un­der Sec. 1363(f) of the Revised
Administrative Code for violation of Central Bank Circular 44.  Thereupon, Litton appealed to the
Commissioner of Customs but the later rendered on March 25, 1960 the following orders:

“WHEREFORE, by authority of Section 1380 of the Revised
Administrative Code in relation to Section 3702 of the Tariff and Customs Code
of the Philippines, the Central Surety & Insurance Co. Bond No. G-21119,
dated September 21, 1956, which was filed for the release of the articles in
question, is hereby confiscated; and the principal, Litton & Co., Inc. as
well as the aforesaid surety are hereby ordered to pay in CASH jointly and
severally, the amount of EIGHT THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY-TWO and 36/100
(P8,472.36), Philippine Currency, to the Bureau of Customs within thirty (30)
days from receipt of a copy of this decision in ac­cordance with the terms of
the said bond.”

On appeal the Court of Tax Appeals
affirmed the abovementioned order.

Litton & Co., Inc. elevated the case to Us present­ing the
following propositions.  (1) The repeal
of Cen­tral Bank Circular 44 by Circular 33 abated the liabili­ty of
forfeiture.  (2) The appraised value of
the merchandise should have been determined in the manner provided in Section 2
of Rule 13(a) of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909, as amended, in relation to
Sec. 1280 of the Re­vised Administrative Code, instead of in accordance with
Section 1377 of the Revised Administrative Code, as was done.  (3) Section 34 of Republic Act 265 should
apply in this case to the exclusion of Section 1363(f) of the Re­vised
Administrative Code, and accordingly the Collector of Customs of Manila should
have certified the case to the City Fiscal of Manila.

It has been settled in previous similar cases that Central Bank
Circular 133 did not repeal Circular 44 with respect to the requirement of a
release certificate.^[1]
But assuming arguendo that repeal took place, it did
not have the effect of legalizing an importation which was made illegally prior
to the repeal.

The Collector of Customs used the local market value of
the merchandise in fixing the value appearing in the surety bond in accordance
with Section 1377 of the Re­vised Administrative Code.  In doing so, he merely added to the landed
cost an estimated profit of 30%.  Litton,
on the other hand, contends that the appraised value should be that obtaining
in the country of origin pursuant to Rule 13(a) of Section 2 of the
Philippine Tariff Act of 1909.

Litton’s contention has no merit. 
Rule 13(a), Section 2 of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909, as amended,
relates to the appraisal of importations for purposes of determining the
customs duties; while Section 1377 of the Revised Administrative Code refers to
appraisal of importations in connection with seizure proceedings, which is the
case here.^[2]

Appellant emphatically contends that Section 34 of Republic Act
265 is applicable to this case.  We quote
Section 34 hereunder:

“SEC. 34. Proceedings upon violation of laws and
regulations.  – Whenever any person
or entity wilfully violates this Act or any order,
instruction, rule or regulations legally is­sued by the Monetary Board, the
person or persons responsible for such violation shall be punished by a fine of
not more than twenty thou­sand pesos and by imprisonment of not more than five
years.”

Its applicability however extends to the
criminal liabi­lity of the person or persons violating the regulations issued
by the Monetary Board, in addition to the seizure and forfeiture
proceedings in the Bureau of Customs against the imported merchandise affected
in accordance with provisions of the Revised Administrative Code.^[3]
As suggested by counsel for Litton & Co., Inc., the Collector of Customs of
Manila should apprise the City Fiscal of Manila of this case for appropriate
prosecution of the persons or corporate officers criminally responsible.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed.  Costs against appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, C.J., and Dizon, J., on official leave.

^[1] Bombay
Dept. Store v. Commissioner of Customs, L-20460, Sept. 30, 1965; Lazaro v.
Commissioner of Customs, L-21790 & L-21794, Dec. 24, 1965.

^[2] Lazaro v. Commissioner of Customs, L-21790 &
L-21794, Dec. 24, 1965.

^[3] Pascual v. Commissioner of Customs, L-12219, April 24, 1962.