ANDRES E. LAZARO, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENT. ANDRES E. LAZARO, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENT.

This is a petition for review of a deci­sion of the Court of Tax
Appeals.

On August 31, 1954,
the SS “Templar” arrived at the port
of Manila with a shipment, among
others, of candies, dried shrimps, and celluloid combs, consigned to petitioner,
Andres E. Lazaro, under customs entry No. 69463.  For lack of the Central Bank release
certificate required in Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, in relation to
Sec­tion 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, the goods were subjected
to seizure proceedings; but, on September 4, 1954, they were released to the
petitioner upon a sure­ty bond of the Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation
— filed by him — in the sum of P4,822.00, based on the value of the goods, as
appraised by the Bureau of Customs, including an estimated profit of 30% of the
landed cost.

After appropriate proceedings, the Collector of Customs rendered
a decision decreeing the forfeiture of the goods, and, as the same had already
been released to the petitioner, ordering him to pay in cash the sum of
P4,820.00, as the value thereof.  This
decision was, on appeal taken by petitioner, affirmed by the Commissioner of
Customs, who directed the confiscation of said bond and ordered petitioner and
his surety to pay, jointly and several­ly, in cash, said sum of P4,822.00,
within thirty (30) days from notice.  A
reconsideration of the decision of the Commissioner of Customs having been
denied, petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration, with the same
result.  Petitioner appealed to the Court
of Tax Appeals, which af­firmed the decision of the Commissioner of
Customs.  Said Court having subsequently
refused to reconsider its deci­sion, two (2) petitions for review thereof by
the Supreme Court have been filed for petitioner herein, one (L-22512) by
Attys. De Leon & De Leon and Nicolas V. Benedicto,
Jr., and another (L-22514) by Atty. Juan T. David.

Although petitioner’s counsel in these two (2) cases have filed
separate briefs, with their respective assign­ments of error, the issues raised
in both are substantial­ly the same. 
Petitioner maintains that Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative
Code, which was applied by the Court of Tax Appeals, to sustain the decision of
the Commissioner of Customs, is inapplicable to this case because said section
refers to articles of “prohibited importation, ” to which category
the goods in question do not he claims,
belong; that Circulars Nos. 44 and 45^[1] do not authorize the forfeiture of goods
imported in violation there­of; that said circulars have been repealed by
Circular No. 133, issued by the Central Bank on January 21, 1962, and abolish­ing
control over foreign exchange and dispensing with the re­quirement, under
Circular No. 44, of import licenses, and by Republic Act No. 1410, approved on
September 10, 1955; that said repeals had abated any and all liabilities
incurred in consequence of the violation of Circulars Nos. 44 and 45; and that,
in any event, such liability should be limited to the value of
the imported goods at the place of origin, as provided in Section 13(a) of the
Philippine Tariff Act of 1909, as amended, in re­lation to Section 1280 of the
Revised Administrative Code, and should not include estimated profits.

These questions have
already been decided by this Court adversely to petitioner’s pretense.  Indeed, in Lazaro
vs. Com­missioner of Customs^[2] involving the same petitioner — we held
that:

1. Despite the issuance of Central Bank Circular No. 133,
importations made without the corresponding Central Bank release certificate
violated said Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, in relation to Section 1363(f) of the
Revised Administra­tive Code, for

“Central Bank Circular 133 did not repeal Circulars 44
and 45 with respect to the necessity of a release certificate.  As a matter of fact, para­graph 6 of Circular
133 required imports to be re­leased only upon presentation of a release
certifi­cate issued by the Central Bank. 
Not only that, section 14 of Circular 44 which states:

’14. No item of import shall be released by the Bureau of Customs
with­out the presentation of a release certifi­cate issued by the
Central Bank or any authorized Agent Bank in a form pre­scribed by the Monetary
Board.’

was deemed incorporated to Circular 133
by vir­tue of paragraph 8 thereof which we quote here­under:

‘8. All existing circulars, rules and regulations and conditions
governing transactions in foreign exchange not inconsistent with the provisions
of this Cir­cular, are deemed incorporated hereto and made integral parts
hereof by reference. ‘”

2. The passage of Republic Act No. 1410 did not abate any
liability incurred for violation of Central Bank Circular No. 45, because
Section 3 of said Act provides:

“x x x
That goods and commodities in transit or previously imported on a no-dollar
remittance basis at the time of the approval of this Act shall not
be affected by the operation of this Act.”

3. For purposes of seizure proceedings, the appraised value of the
imported merchandize should not be market value in the country of origin,
as provided in Section 13(a) of the Phil­ippine Tariff Act of 1909, as amended,
in relation to Section 1280 of the Revised Administrative Code, because:

“Rule 13(a) of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909, as amended,
relates to the appraisal of im­portations for purposes of determining the
customs duties.  (See Lim Quim v. Collector of Customs, 23 Phil. 509).  For appraisal of importations in
connection with seizure proceedings, the value of the importation in the local
market should prevail, following section 1377 of the Revised Administra­tive
Code which provides:

‘Sec. 1377. Description and appraise­ment of seized property.  – The collector shall also cause a list and
particular description of the property seized to be prepared and
appraisement of the same at its value in the local market to be made by
at least two ap­praising officers under the revenue laws, if there are such
officers at or near the place of seizure, but if there are not, then by two
competent and disinterested citizens of the Philippines, to be selected by him
for the purpose residing at or near the place of seizure which list and
appraisement shall be properly attested by such collector and the persons
making the appraisal.'” and

4. As regards the inclusion of the 30% estimated pro­fit, as part
of the appraised value of the goods involved in the present case,

“x x x the
inclusion of the 30% estimated profits as part of the value of the importations
in question was made, with the acquiescence and ap­proval of the
appellant.  As a matter of fact, the
amount of bonds posted by him upon release of the goods carried the 30%
estimated profits.  The payment of such
estimated profits as part of the value of the importations in the surety bonds
therefore constitutes his contractual obligation in case of forfeiture.”

In fact, the applicability of the aforementioned Cir­culars Nos.
44 and 45 to importations involving no-dollar remittances is well settled and
the foregoing views have been upheld in a long line of decisions.1

Lastly, petitioner had submitted the issues herein for decision,
by the Court of Tax Appeals, “on the basis of the final ruling of the
Supreme Court in the aforemen­tioned cases” of Andres Lazaro
v. Commissioner of Cus­toms, L-21790 and L-21794, which, accordingly, are con­trolling
in the present appeals.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it
is hereby, affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Pursuant to par 14 of Circular No. 44:

“x x x No item of import shall be released by the Bureau of
Customs without the presentation of a release certificate issued by the Central
Bank or any Authorized Agent Bank in a form prescribed by the Monetary Board.”

Circular No. 45 provides, inter alia,
that:

“WHEREAS, practically all
imports repre­sent an immediate demand for foreign exchange or a potential
demand for foreign exchange;

x          x        
x         x         x         x

“x x
x The Monetary Board, in pursuance of Central Bank
Circular No. 20 and other circulars and notifications issued in pursuance
thereto, hereby re­quires any person or entity who intends to import or receive
goods from any foreign country for which no foreign exchange is required or
will be required of the banks to apply for a license from the Monetary Board to
authorize such import.”

^[2]
G. R. Nos. L-21790 and L-21794, December
24, 1965

1
Pascual v. Comm. of Customs, L-10979, June
30, 1961; Actg. Comm. of Customs v. Leuterio,
L-9142, Oct. 17, 1951; Tong Teck v. Comm. of
Customs, L-11947, June 30, 1959; Comm. of Customs v. Eastern Sea
Trading, L-14279, Oct. 31, 1961; Comm. of Customs v. Santos, L-11911,
Mar. 1962; Comm. of Customs v. Nepomuceno,
L-11126, Mar. 1962; Seree Investment Co. v.
Comm. of Customs, L-19564, Nov. 28, 1964; Seree
Investment Co. v. Comm. of Customs, L-20847-49, June 22, 1965; Bombay
Department Store v. Comm. of Customs, L-20460, Sept. 30, 1965; Seree Investment Co. v. Comm. of Customs, L-21217,
Nov. 29, 1965; Yupangco & Sons, Inc. v.
Comm. of Customs, L-22259, Jan. 19, 1966; Chan Kian v.
Collector of Customs, L-20803, Jan. 31, 1966 and Phil. International Surety v.
Comm. of Customs, L-22209, December 17, 1966.