JUANA T. DE LA CRUZ, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF TAX APPEALS AND THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENTS.

Appeal from a decision, of the Court of Tax Appeals, in the above-entitled
two (2) cases — which were jointly tried and disposed of in a single decision —
affirming decisions of the missioner of Customs ordering petitioner Juana de la
Cruz and her surety, Alto Surety and Insurance Co., Inc., to pay jointly and severally,
the sums of P158,219.00 (in CTA- 980, now G.R. No. L-23334) and P49,411.00 (in
CTA-1150,  now G R. No. L-23451),
representing the value of articles imported by herein petitioner, allegedly in
violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45.

As stipulated by the parties and adopted by the Commission of
Customs and the Court of Tax Appeals, the acts are:

“CTA CASE NO. 980

“1.  That the merchandise
covered by Seizure Identification Nos. 2589 and 2590 arrived in Manila from Hongkong, on February 15, 1955, on board the s/s ‘HAIMENG’,
and were declared in Entries Nos. 13614 (Exh. ‘A’)
and 13615 (Exh. ‘B’), both series of 1955;

“2.  That the shipment
covered by Seizure Identification No. 2616 arrived in Manila from Hongkong on February 18, 1955, aboard the s/s. ‘Tsimengteng‘, and was declared in Entry No. 14653 (Exh. ‘C’), series of 1955;

“3.  That the importation
covered by Seizure Identification No. 2691 arrived in Manila from Hong­kong on March 4, 1955, on board the s/s ‘STRAAT
MOZAMBIQUE’, and was declared in entry No. 18688 (Exh.
‘D’), series of 1955;

“4.  That the goods covered
by Seizure Identification No. 2736 arrived in Manila from Hong­kong
on March 17, 1955, via the s/s ‘PRETCRIA’ and were declared in Entries Nos.
23285 and 23286 (Exh. ‘E’), both series of 1955;

“5.  That the shipment
covered by Seizure Identification No. 2842 arrived in Manila from Hong­kong on April 5, 1955, via the s/s ‘SILVERASH’ and was
declared in Entry No. 30048 (Exh. ‘F2’), series of
1955;

“6.  That the importation
covered by Seizure Identification No. 2868 arrived in. Manila
from Hong­kong on April 13, 1955, ex s/s ‘TEGELBERG’, and was declared in
Entry No. 31754 (Exh. ‘G’), series of 1955;

“7.  That the shipment
covered by Seizure Identification No. 2882 arrived in Manila from Hongkong on April 16, 1955, on board the s/s ‘LEVERKUSEN
and was declared in Entry No. 34122 (Exh. ‘H’),
series of 1955;

“8.  That the subject
shipments are duly supported by proper shipping documents except consular
invoices and bank release certificates, for which reason they were ordered
seized for alleged violations in Central Bank Circular Nos. 44 and 45 in
relation to Sections 1363(f) and 1250 of the Revised Administrative Code.

“9.  That the subject importations involved no
dollar remittances or the sale of foreign ex­change; and

“10.  That the shipments in
question were released to claimant it under surety bonds pending the outcome
of the seizure proceedings.”

“CTA CASE NO. 1150

“1.  That 381 packages
of various foodstuff were consigned to Juana T. de la Cruz, which ar­rived in
the port of Manila on June 23, 1955 from Hongkong on
board the S/S ‘Bencleuch‘ Reg. No. 731, and which
were declared under Entry No. 56410, series of 1955, (Exh.
‘A’), together with the bill of lading, (Exh. ‘B’),
the commercial in­voice (Exh. ‘C’), the official
receipt evidencing payment of duties and taxes (Exh.
‘D’) and an of­ficial receipt evidencing the deposit of additional sales tax;

“2.  That no Central Bank Release
Certi­ficate was submitted;

“3.  That the merchandise was
found to tally with the declaration in the entry and all duties and taxes
thereon were paid.  However, the
Appraisers’ Division reported the merchandise for seizure for alleged violation
of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 in relation to Sections 1363 (f) and
1250 in the Revised Administrative Code, be­cause one of the requirements for
release is the pre­sentation of Central Bank release certificate; and

“4.  That the
merchandise was released un­der surety bond pending seizure proceedings.”

Upon the conclusion of said seizure proceedings, the Collector of
Customs for the Port of Manila, in two (2) separate decisions ordered
petitioner and her surety, to jointly and severally pay the full amount of the
bonds filed by them for the release of the goods in question, upon the ground
that the same had been imported in viola­tion of said circulars, in relation to
Sections 1250 and 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code.  On appeal taken by petitioner, said decisions
were affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs. 
Peti­tioner appealed from the latter’s decisions to the Court of Tax
Appeals, with the same result.  Hence,
the present appeal.

In her brief, petitioner maintains that the Court of Tax Ap­peals
erred:  (1) in holding that the
importations are covered by Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 of the Central Bank; (2)
in affirming the decisions of the Commissioner of Customs, despite the alleged
repeal of said circulars by Circular No. 133 of the Monetary Board promulgated
on January 21, 1962; (3) in not holding that the sanction prescribed for
violation of said Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 is imposable, not by the customs
authorities, but by the courts of justice, upon criminal prosecution instituted
at the initiative of the, Central Bank; (4) in not holding that the customs
authorities are in estoppel to decree the seizure of
said goods, once the same have been re­leased, after collecting the customs
duties and taxes due for the importation thereof; and (5) in holding that
dollar remittances were involved in the importation in question,
notwithstanding the stipula­tion between the parties to the contrary.

We find no merit in this appeal. 
Indeed, it is already settled that that no-dollar importations, made
while Central Bank Circular Nos. 44 and 45 were in force — such as those
involved in the case bar — required, pursuant to the provisions of said
circulars, a, Central Bank release certificate — under the theory that
practically “all imports,” including those involving no-dollar
exchange, represent either an “immediate demand x x
x or a potential demand, of foreign exchange”^[1] —
so that the Central Bank may know the precise volume of our imports of whatever
nature, for guidance in the formu­lation of its policies; that importations, or
the attempt to import goods without the required release certificate,
constituted a violation of sections 1250 and 1363 of the Revised Administrative
Code,^[2]
and are subject to the forfeiture therein provided; and that the liabilities
thus incurred by the importer have not been abrogated or extinguished in
consequence of the promulgation of Central Bank Circular No. 133.^[3]

It may not be amiss to note that the enforcement of said section
1363 of the Revised Administrative Code and other matters arising under the
Customs Laws or other laws or parts of laws administered by the Bureau of
Customs, including seizures made and forfeitures im­posed in relation thereto,
are explicitly placed by law under the authority of the Commission of Customs,
whose power to decide said matters is subject to review by the Court of Tax
Appeals;^[4]
that the bonds filed by petitioner and her surety for the release of the goods
in question expressly acknowledge the authority of the Government to demand
payment of the full amount of said bonds, should the forfeiture of said goods
be eventually decreed; that the release of the goods was thus se­cured by
herein petitioner subject to the right of the Government to decree the
forfeiture of said goods; and that, accordingly, petitioner is in estoppel to question such right.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is
hereby, affirmed, with costs against petitioner Juana T. de la Cruz.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.

^[1] Capulong vs. Act’g. Comm.
of Customs, L-22991, January 16, 1968; People vs. Que
Po Lay, 94 Phil., 640; People vs. Jolliffe,
L-9553, May 13, 1959; Commissioner of Customs vs. Leuterio
L-9142 October 17, 1959; Roxas vs. Sayoc, L-6502, November 29, 1956; Golar-Buchel
& Cie. vs. Comm. of Customs, L-10994 &
L-11012, December 29, 1959.

^[2]
Now Section 2530 of the Tariff and Customs Code.

^[3] Capulong vs. Acting Commissioner of Customs,
L-22991, January 16, 1968; Lazaro vs. Comm. of
Customs, L-22511 & 22513, May 16, 1966; Capulong vs.
Aseron, L-22989, May 14, 1966; Yupang­co
& Sons, Inc. vs. Commissioner of Customs, L-22259, January 19, 1966;
Bombay Department Store vs. Commissioner of Customs, L­-20460, September
30, 1965; Tong Tek vs. Commissioner of Customs, L-11947, June 30, 1959; Pascual vs. Commissioner of Customs, L-10979, June
30, 1959; and People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil.,
640.

^[4]
See Sec. 7(2), Republic Act No. 1125.