Lazaro v. Commissioner of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the importation of goods, specifically candies, dried shrimps, and celluloid combs, by petitioner Andres E. Lazaro. These goods arrived on the SS "Templar" on August 31, 1954. The importation was flagged for seizure proceedings due to the lack of a Central Bank release certificate, a requirement mandated by Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, in conjunction with Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. 2. Procedural History: Although the goods were released to the petitioner upon posting a surety bond, the Collector of Customs subsequently ordered their forfeiture and payment of their value, P4,822.00. This decision was affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs, who also ordered the confiscation of the bond. After the Commissioner denied reconsideration, the petitioner appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals, which also affirmed the Commissioner's decision. The Court of Tax Appeals' denial of a motion for reconsideration led to the filing of two separate petitions for review with the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The petitioner raises several arguments, contending that Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code is inapplicable as the goods were not of prohibited importation. He also argues that Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 do not authorize forfeiture, and that these circulars, along with any incurred liabilities, were repealed by Central Bank Circular No. 133 and Republic Act No. 1410. Furthermore, he asserts that the appraised value should exclude estimated profits and be based on the origin value. These issues were submitted to the Court of Tax Appeals based on prior Supreme Court rulings in similar cases involving the petitioner.
Issue(s)
Whether Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code is applicable to the importation of goods requiring a Central Bank release certificate. Whether Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 authorize the forfeiture of goods imported in violation thereof. Whether Central Bank Circular No. 133 and Republic Act No. 1410 repealed Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 and abated liabilities incurred from their violation. Whether the liability should be limited to the value of the imported goods at the place of origin, excluding estimated profits.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, upholding the forfeiture of the goods and the order for the petitioner to pay the appraised value, including estimated profits, based on the surety bond posted. The Court found that the issues raised had already been decided adversely to the petitioner in previous cases involving the same parties and subject matter.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of Section 1363(f) and the violation of Circulars Nos. 44 and 45: The Court reiterated its previous ruling that importations made without the required Central Bank release certificate violated Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. It clarified that Central Bank Circular No. 133 did not repeal Circulars 44 and 45 regarding 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, and Section 14, which mandated the presentation of a release certificate for release by the Bureau of Customs, was deemed incorporated into Circular 133. On the effect of Republic Act No. 1410 and Circular No. 133: The Court held that the passage of Republic Act No. 1410 did not abate liabilities incurred for violation of Central Bank Circular No. 45. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 1410 explicitly provided that goods and commodities in transit or previously imported on a no-dollar remittance basis at the time of the Act's approval were not affected. Similarly, Circular No. 133 did not retroactively legitimize prior violations or extinguish existing liabilities. On the appraised value for seizure proceedings: The Court clarified that for purposes of seizure proceedings, the appraised value of imported merchandise should be its value in the local market, not the market value in the country of origin. This is in accordance with Section 1377 of the Revised Administrative Code, which mandates appraisement at its value in the local market for seized property. Rule 13(a) of the Philippine Tariff Act of 1909, as amended, which pertains to the value in the country of origin, relates only to the appraisal for determining customs duties, not for seizure proceedings. On the inclusion of estimated profits: The Court found that the inclusion of the 30% estimated profit as part of the appraised value was made with the petitioner's acquiescence and approval. The amount of the surety bond posted by the petitioner upon release of the goods already included this estimated profit. Therefore, the payment of such estimated profits as part of the value of the importations in the surety bond constituted his contractual obligation in case of forfeiture.
Main Doctrine
Importations made without the corresponding Central Bank release certificate violate Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, and such violation is not abated by subsequent circulars or laws unless expressly provided. For seizure proceedings, the value of the importation in the local market prevails, and estimated profits may be included in the appraised value if agreed upon.