This  is an appeal from a  judgment  of  the Court of Tax Appeals upholding the decision of the Commissioner of Customs in  Seizure Identification Cases Nos. 1899 and 1990, that ordered the forfeiture of the bonds filed by the appellant in favor of the Government in the sums of P2,200 and P2,810 and payment of costs by the  appellant (C. T. A. Cases Nos. 146 and  148).

The facts are not disputed, the parties having  entered into a stipulation of facts, upon which the Court made the following  findings:

*  *  * these are two  cases  (Seizure  Identification Nos.  1899 and 1990) brought on appeal from the decisions  of  the respondent Commissioner of Customs, affirming the  decisions  of  the  Acting Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila decreeing the  forfeiture of two shipments  respectively, covering forty-two (42) and twenty-seven (27)  packages of foreign made candies for illegal  violations of Central Banks Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 in relation to section 1363 (f) of the Revised Administrative Code.

Since the issue raised in these appeals involve purely questions of law, the parties  agreed to submit the two cases for decision by this Court on an agreed stipulation of facts.

With respect to C. T. A. Case No. 146, (Seizure Identification No. 1899),  it appears that forty-two (42) packages of foreign made candies consigned to the herein petitioner  Francisco Pascual, arrived in Port of  Manila from  Hongkong on September  3,  1954, on board the S.  S. "Kina", under Bill of  Lading No. M-13  and a commercial invoice dated September  1, 1954.

Relative to C.  T. A. Case  No. 148, (Seizure Identification  No. 1990)   it appears  that  another  shipment  of  twenty-seven  (27) packages of similar merchandise  consigned to the same petitioner arrived in  the  Port of Manila from  Hongkong on  September 23, 1954, on board S.-S.  "Hermod", under Bill of Lading No. 75.

It is admitted  by the  parties that these two shipments are not covered by  consular  invoices  from  he  Philippine  Consulate  at Hongkong much less by  release certificates  from the Central Bank or its duly  authorized  agent banks as  a result of  which the Acting Collector of  Customs for the Port of Manila ordered,the forfeiture of the subject importations allegedly for violations of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 in relation to section 1363 (f) of the Revised Administrative Code.

On September 8  and 29,  1954,  the  merchandise covered  by  the two shipment were released to the petitioner under Reliance Surety and Insurance Co. Bond No. C-022/54 for P2,200.00 and  Philippine International Surety Co. Bond No.  128  for P2,810.00.

After due hearing of the two cases pursuant to  the  provisions of the Revised Administrative Code, the Acting Collector of Customs for the port of Manila rendered the corresponding decisions dated January 22,  1955 and January 21, 1955, respectively, decreeing  the forfeiture of the two  shipments  of candies  in  question totalling sixty-nine  (69) packages for alleged  violations  of  Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 in  relation  to section  1363  (f)  of  the Revised Administrative Code.   The Acting Collector of Customs  for the  Port of  Manila also ordered  the petitioner  to pay in cash within thirty (30) days from the date of demand for payment  the amounts of  P2,200.00 and P2,810.00, respectively, under penalty of forfeiture of the two surety bonds  filed in favor of the  Government for the release of the two shipments.

The  petitioner appealed the  decisions of the Acting Collector of Customs for  the Port of Manila  to  the respondent  herein,  the Commissioner of Customs, who affirmed the same in toto on May 13 and 14, 1955, respectively.  From these two  last decisions,  the petitioner perfected his appeal to this Court within the reglementary period.

As  heretofore stated,  the  only issue  raised in this  appeal is whether or not the sixty-nine (69) packages of candies in question are subject to forfeiture  for violation of Central  Bank Circulars Nos. 44  and  45 in  relation  to  section 1363  (f)  of  the  Revised Administrative Code.

Section 74 of Republic Act No. 265 provides:

Notwithstanding the provisions of the third paragraph of  the preceding section, in order to  protect the international  reserve of the  Central  Bank during  an  exchange crisis and  to give  the Monetary Board and the Government time  in which to take constructive measures to combat such crisis, the Monetary Board, with  the concurrence of at least five of its members, and with the approval of the  President of  the Philippines, may temporarily suspend or restrict sales  of  exchange by the Central Bank and may  subject all transactions  in gold and foreign  exchange to license  by  the Central Bank.  The adoption of the emergency measures authorized in this section shall be subject to any executive and international agreements to which the Republic of the Philippines is a party.

Pursuant  to the foregoing authority  granted  to the Central Bank, on 9 December 1949  the Monetary Board, by unanimous vote and with the approval of the  President, issued Circular No. 20,^[1] restricting  "sales  of exchange" and subjecting "all transactions in  gold and foreign exchange to licensing by the  Central  Bank."  On 18  June 1953 the Monetary Board approved and  issued Circular No. 44,⁽¹⁾ laying down the  "guiding principles governing the  licensing  of  foreign  exchange  for the payment  of imports, to  take  effect  beginning July  1, 1953."   Paragraph 14 of the last mentioned Circular provides:

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.

On 25 June 1953 the Monetary Board approved and issued Circular No.  45 to take effect on 1 July 1953,^[2] requiring "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."

It is stipulated by  the parties that  the two shipments in  question were  not  covered by consular invoices  issued by the Philippine Consulate  in Hongkong, from  which they were shipped,  and by release certificates issued by the Central Bank or its duly authorized agent banks.   As held by the Court of Tax Appeals

*   *   * there is absolutely no evidence to show, as the petitioner should have shown, that the two importations do not involve dollar remittances or  the sale of  foreign exchange.  Even  the stipulation of facts submitted by the parties is silent on this particular point. We note, further that  the entry  declarations  accompanying the two shipments  do not indicate that the merchandise in  question do not involve dollar remittances or the sale of foreign exchange.  If, as alleged by the petitioner, these importations do not involve dollar remittances or the  sale of foreign exchange, which fact does not appear  in the invoices or shipping document  submitted by him, the least that he could have done was to indicate on the entry declarations' (B. C. Form No. 11-A) the words "No Dollar Remittance"  as is naturally to be expected  of him.   The failure of the petitioner to state such material fact in his entry declarations militates against his pretension that his importations do not involve dollar remittances or sale  of foreign exchange.

Moreover, it is a recognized general mercantile practice that importations involve the sale of foreign exchange.  Different countries have their own legal tender currencies and because  of this variety of  currencies, it is recognized and conceded that practically all Imports represent  a demand, potential or otherwise, for foreign exchange by the country concerned.  Importations  of merchandise payable in services or in  kind are negligibly  few and  isolated. They  are an exception to the general  mercantile practice.  This being so, importations that  do not  involve  the sale  of foreign exchange must  be shown or proved.  In default of such showing or proof as in fact the petitioner  failed to prove  in the instant case, it  would be safe to assume that the importations in question involve  the sale of foreign exchange  for which the petitioner did not obtain the corresponding  dollar allocation or foreign exchange license from the Central Bank as required  by Circular No. 44 of said bank.  ''

On 11 April 1956 the petitioner filed a motion to re-open. the cases to  introduce evidence that the  importations in question do  not require the sale  of foreign exchange; on 21  April  the respondent  objected  to  the motion  on the ground that it is  not accompanied  by  an  affidavit of merit;  on 11 May the petitioner  filed  an answer dated 6 May to the  opposition, attaching thereto  an affidavit subscribed and sworn to  by Juan T. David,  one of the petitioner's counsel; and on 14 May the respondent replied to the  answer.  On 11 June the Court of Tax Appeals denied  the motion to reopen the cases  on the  ground that the petitioner's motion was in effect for new trial under Rule  37, but as it was not accompanied  by an affidavit of merit, it did  not interrupt the  period for appeal and that granting  that the defect was cured  by  the subsequent presentation of the required affidavit, yet the same was not the one  contemplated  by the Rules because it  merely contained conclusions or opinions of counsel and not allegations  of facts constituting the valid  cause of action or defense.  The Court did not err in denying the petitioner's motion  to reopen the cases.

Appellant claims that the negative finding of the Court of Tax Appeals that "there  is absolutely no evidence to show, as the petitioner should  have shown, that the two importations do not involve dollar remittances or the sale of foreign exchange," is destroyed by the admission made by the  respondent Commissioner  in his decisions  of 13 and 14 May  1955  holding that his "office  has held In a line of  decisions that Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 are applicable to all importations not falling under the exceptions herein enumerated, whether such importations are with dollar remittance or without  dollar remittance." Such  statements cannot be construed as an admission that the importations  in questions do not require the sale of foreign exchange.  Even granting that the importations in question do not require an Immediate sale of foreign exchange, their importation  into  the  Philippines  from another country will ultimately require the sale  of such exchange.  The currency of one country is not legal tender in another.   To pay for imports,  traders  have to  avail themselves of foreign  exchange, which is the conversion of an amount of money of currency of one country into an equivalent amount  of money or currency of another.^{1} Every  import of goods or merchandise requires an immediate or future demand for foreign exchange.

Section 74, Republic Act No. 265, authorizes the Monetary Board, with the approval of the President,  to temporarily  suspend or restrict  sales  of  exchange  and  to subject all transactions in gold and foreign exchange to license during an exchange crisis in order to protect  the international reserve and to give the  Monetary Board and the  Government time in  which to take constructive measures to combat such a crisis.  Circular No. 44, prohibiting the release by the Commissioner of  Customs of any item of import 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, and Circular  No. 45, requiring "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," are measures taken to check the unregulated flow of foreign exchange from the country and are within the powers of the Monetary Board.

Appellant's contention is that  Congress has not  authorized the Central Bank to issue regulations governing imports that  do not require the sale of  foreign exchange, because according to him, it would not  have enacted into law Republic Act No. 1410.  The contention assumes that the importations  do not require the  sale of  foreign exchange, a fact which he failed to establish. Appellant contends that assuming that the importations in question require the sale of foreign exchange in violation of Circular  No. 44, yet they may not be forfeited under  the  said  Circular because  it  does not expressly provide for the  penalty  of  forfeiture.  Circulars  No. 45 in part 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."  Circular  No.  44 requires the presentation of release certificate  issued by the Central Bank  or any authorized  agent bank in a  form prescribed by the Monetary Board for the release of import by the  Bureau of Customs.   Section 1363 (f) of the Revised Administrative Code provides:

Vessels, cargo, merchandise, and other subjects and things  shall, under the conditions hereinbelow specified, be subject  to forfeiture;

*       *       *       *       *      *      *

(f)  Any merchandise of prohibited importation  or exportation,. the importation  or  exportation  of which is effected  or attempted contrary to law,  and all other merchandise which, in the opinion of the collector, have been used, are or were intended to be used as instrument in the importation or exportation of the former.

As  already stated, Circulars Nos. 44 and 45  were issued by the Monetary Board  within the scope of  its  powers. They were published in the Official Gazette in  June 1953.¹ Appellant failed to present to the Commissioner of Customs release certificates issued by the Central Bank or its  duly authorized  agent  banks for the importations in question. The Commissioner of Customs may, therefore, seize  them and order their forfeiture under the aforequoted provisions of the Revised Administrative Code.  It is true that neither of the  Circulars provide for the penalty  of  forfeiture. But since the importations  in question were made without the necessary import license issued by the Monetary Board  pursuant to Circular No. 45 and the release  certificates issued by the Central  Bank or  its  authorized agent bank in the prescribed form pursuant to Circular No. 44, they  fall within the class of "merchandise of prohibited importation" or merchandise "the importation ** *  of which is effected  *  *  * contrary to  law" that the  Commissioner of  Customs may seize  and  order forfeited.  To sustain the appellant's theory of the case would render  nugatory the aim and purpose of  the  law when it authorizes the Central Bank to temporarily suspend or restrict the sale of foreign exchange and subject all transactions in gold and foreign  exchange to licensing  during an exchange crisis  in order to  protect the international reserve and to give the Monetary Board and the Government time in which  to  take constructive measures  to combat such a crisis.

Appellant's claim that Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 were promulgated by the Monetary Board without the concurrence of at  least five of its members  and without  the approval of  the President, is not supported by evidence.

They have been published in the Official Gazette and  the presumption that an official  duty has been regularly performed, the  ordinary course of business  followed, and the law complied with, is on the appellee's side. Moreover,  the appellant cannot complain that he has been deprived of his property without due process of law.

The seizure proceeding conducted by the Acting Collector of Customs is regular  on its face and cannot be assailed. In fact the  appellant was  afforded the opportunity  to prove his claim.   He did try but failed to prove it.

The  judgment  under review  is  affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,  Endencia, and Barrera, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] 47 Off. Gaz. 5567-6568.

⁽¹⁾ 49 Off. Gaz. 2189-2191.

^[2] 49 Off. Gaz. 2189-2192.

^{1} Janda vs. Lepanto  Consolidated Mining Company, 52 Off. Gaz., 4250, 4255; Belnan Compañia Incorporada vs. Central Bank of the Philippines, 104 Phil.,  877.

¹ 49 Off. Gaz. 2189-2192.