THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PETITIONER VS. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY, RESPONDENT.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals dated July 16,
1958, reversing the decision of the Commissioner of Customs, the dispositive
portion of which states—

“The instant case is a companion case of C.T.A. Case No. 227 involving the
same parties which was decided by this Court on January 5, 1957. In that case,
the merchandise involved were imported by petitioner from the panic shipper in
Hongkong under the same circumstances as in the instant case. Both importation
arrived in. Manila on the same boat on October 8, 1954. In C.T.A. case No. 227,
we expressed the following’ opinion:

‘We have already held that Central Bank Circular Nos. 44 and 45, in so far as
they sought to regulate importations involving; no-dollar remittance, are void.
Accordingly, articles imported from abroad involving; no-dollar remittance can
not be legally forfeited rinder Section 1383 (f) of the Administrative Code for
violation of said circulars.’

“We find no reason for deviating from the views expressed in said C.T.A. Case
No. 227.

“The decision appealed from is reversed, and the surety bond filed by
petitioner in this case is hereby cancelled. No costs.”

The facts, as stipulated by the parties, and as stated in the said decision
are as follows—

“The merchandise in question arrived at the Port of Manila from Hongkong on
October 8, 11)54 on board the S/S PASADENA, and wore declared in Entry No.
79817. Claiming that the importation was made on a no-dollar remittance basis,
petitioner did not secure a release certificate from the Central Bank, or from
any of its authorized agent banks, as required by Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44
and 45. Seizure proceedings .were, therefore, instituted against said
merchandise. (Seizure identification No. 2049) for violation of said circulars
in relation to Sections 1363 (f) and 1250 of the Administrative Code. Meanwhile,
the importation in question was released npoh the filing of a surety bond
pending seizure proceeding’s.”

The instant case is the same as that of Commissioner of Customs vs. Serree
Investment Company, 108 Phil. 1; 58 Off. Gaz., (32) 5413. The same parties are
involved and the same issues are raised on the appeal. As a matter of fact, the
merchandise in the instant case arrived at the same time, on board the same ship
and under the same circumstances as the merchandise in the other case
(L-12007).

The instant case should, therefore, be decided in accordance with our
decision in the previous case (L-12007) wherein we upheld the validity of
Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 of the Central Bank and ruled that the importation
would ultimately involve a future demand for foreign exchange.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby reversed and the decision of the
Commissioner of Customs and the Collector of Customs affirmed. With costs
against respondent.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes,
J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ.,
concur.

Decision reversed.