Lazaro v. Commissioner of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Andres E. Lazaro, the petitioner, was the consignee of several shipments of fish fins, foodstuffs, candies, and shrimps that arrived in Manila from Hong Kong between August 31 and October 3, 1954. These importations were subject to Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45, which required a Central Bank release certificate for their lawful entry. The goods were released to Lazaro under various surety bonds pending seizure proceedings initiated by the Collector of Customs due to the absence of the required release certificates. 2. Procedural History: The Collector of Customs of Manila initiated seizure proceedings (Seizure Identification Nos. 1877, 2003, 2015, and 2016) against the importations for failing to present the requisite Central Bank release certificates. The Collector subsequently declared the goods forfeited in two separate decisions on February 14 and April 26, 1955, ordering Lazaro and his sureties to pay a total of P18,047.40. This decision was affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs upon appeal. Further appeal to the Court of Tax Appeals also resulted in an affirmation of the Commissioner's decision. 3. The Petition: Dissatisfied with the Court of Tax Appeals' ruling, Andres E. Lazaro filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The petition raises three main issues: (1) whether the importations could be seized and forfeited for the lack of a Central Bank release certificate; (2) whether Republic Act 1410 and Central Bank Circular 133 repealed Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45, thereby abating any incurred liability; and (3) whether the 30% estimated profits should be included in the appraised value of the importations. The appeal is brought under the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
May the importations in question be seized and declared forfeited for lack of a Central Bank release Certificate? Did Republic Act 1410 and Central Bank Circular 133 repeal Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45 and thereby abate liability incurred thereunder? Should the 30% estimated profits be considered part of the appraised value of the importations?
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, upholding the forfeiture of the importations and the assessed amount. The Court found that the lack of a Central Bank release certificate warranted forfeiture, that Central Bank Circular 133 did not repeal the requirement for such certificates, and that the 30% estimated profits were correctly included in the appraised value for seizure proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of seizure and forfeiture for lack of a Central Bank release certificate: The Court held that the importations were subject to forfeiture for failing to present a Central Bank release certificate, as required by Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45, in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. This ruling was consistent with previous decisions involving similar facts, and the Court found no reason to deviate from established jurisprudence on the matter. The requirement for a release certificate was a condition precedent for the lawful release of imported goods from customs custody. On the issue of repeal of Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45 by Republic Act 1410 and Central Bank Circular 133: The Court ruled that Central Bank Circular 133 did not repeal Circulars 44 and 45 concerning the necessity of a release certificate. In fact, paragraph 6 of Circular 133 explicitly required imports to be released only upon presentation of a release certificate. Furthermore, Section 14 of Circular 44, which mandated the presentation of a release certificate for customs release, was deemed incorporated into Circular 133 by virtue of paragraph 8 thereof. Regarding Republic Act 1410, the Court clarified that the importations in question did not fall within its scope because Section 3 of the Act specifically excluded goods previously imported at the time of its approval. Since the goods had already been imported and declared forfeited before the enactment of RA 1410, the Act did not abate any liability incurred under the prior circulars. On the issue of including 30% estimated profits in the appraised value: The Court found the petitioner's contention that only the market value in the country of origin should be used for appraisal to be without merit. It distinguished between appraisal for customs duties, which follows the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909, and appraisal for seizure proceedings. For seizure proceedings, Section 1377 of the Revised Administrative Code mandates that the appraisal be based on the value in the local market. The Court further noted that the inclusion of the 30% estimated profits was made with the petitioner's acquiescence, as evidenced by the amounts of the surety bonds posted, which already incorporated this estimated profit. Therefore, the petitioner was contractually bound to this valuation in case of forfeiture.
Main Doctrine
Importations seized for lack of a Central Bank release certificate are subject to forfeiture, and the appraised value for seizure proceedings, which includes estimated profits, is determined by local market value, not the invoice value from the country of origin.