G.R. No. L-22380. August 15, 1967
FERMIN SARE, PETITIONER, VS. TIMOTEO Y. ASERON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENT.
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
The facts of this case were stipulated. On October
28, 1954 Fermin Sare
imported from Hongkong two shipments of various
merchandise.[1]
On November 2, 1954 he
again imported from Hongkong a shipment of various
merchandise.[2]
The corresponding bills of lading and commercial invoices accompanied said
importations. Lacking however, were the
import licenses and release certificates required by Central Bank Circulars 44
and 45, and consular invoices. In view
of these deficiencies, the three shipments were subjected to seizure and
forfeiture proceedings by the Collector of Customs of Manila for violation of
Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45 in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised
Administrative Code. The cases were
docketed as Seizure Identification Nos. 2112, 2121 and 2134.
Meanwhile, the goods were released to Sare
under Surety Bonds PICSC Nos. 151, 154 and 158 of the Pioneer Insurance and
Surety Corporation in the respective amounts of P2,890.69, P2,411.00 and
P4,067.00. Customs duties and sales
taxes were paid.
On April 28, 1955,
after hearing, the Collector of Customs of Manila declared the imported goods
forfeited and since they had already been released he ordered Sare to pay the Government the value thereof in the amount
of P9,368,69. Sare
appealed to the Commissioner of Customs who affirmed the decision of the
Collector of Customs. Not satisfied, Sare appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals. The Court of Tax Appeals sustained the
Commissioner of Customs. Hence, this
appeal to Us.
The issues are: (1) Is the forfeiture valid? (2) Did Central Bank Circular 133 repeal
Circulars 44 and 45? If so, did the
repeal abate the forfeiture?
Sare maintains that forfeiture of his
goods cannot be ordered inasmuch as Circulars 44 and 45 do not impose
forfeiture for their violation; and, that the goods he imported are not goods
of prohibited importation contemplated in Section 1363(f) of the Revised
Administrative Code. These propositions
had already been rejected by Us in Pascual v. The
Commissioner of Customs,[3]
the facts of which are similar to the case at bar. We there said:
“But it is contended that there is nothing in Circular No. 44
which provides for the seizure of merchandise which may be imported in
violation thereof even if it be maintained that the same has been validly
issued and so the seizure of said merchandise by the Collector of Customs has
been made without authority of law.
However, while it is true that said circular does not provide for the
penalty of forfeiture in case of a violation thereof, it is nonetheless true
that the same is subject to enforcement by the Bureau of Customs and as such is
deemed part of the customs law under Section 1419 of the Revised Administrative
Code. It may, therefore, be said that
the shipment in question which was imported in violation of Circular No. 44 is
subject to forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code
which specifically provides that all merchandise imported contrary to law
is subject to forfeiture. Moreover,
although a circular duly issued is not strictly a statute or a law it has however
the force and effect of law according to the settled jurisprudence in this
jurisdiction. x x
x“
“There is no point to make a distinction between merchandise
of ‘prohibited importation’ and those ‘imported contrary to law’ used in
Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code considering that no such
distinction is made in Central Bank Circular No. 44. This circular punishes the importation of any
merchandise whether prohibited or otherwise if the same is effected without
the release certificate issue by said bank or any of its authorized
agents. The distinction that petitioner
makes is therefore of no legal consequence.”
We need not say further to dispose of the
same issue raised here.
In respect to the question of whether or not Circular 133
repealed Circulars 44 and 45, this Court has ruled that Circular 133 in effect
did not repeal them for the reason that in paragraph 6 thereof it reiterated
the requirement of a release certificate.[4]
We still hold the same view. But
assuming arguendo that Circular 133 did repeal
Circulars 44 and 45, such repeal did not legalize the illegal importations made
before the alleged repeal.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is affirmed. Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Reyes, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles, and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, C.J., and Dizon, J., on official leave.
[1]
Registry No. 1371, Entry Nos. 85328 and 85327, Series of 1954.
[2]
Registry No. 1395, Entry No. 87046, Series of 1954.
[3]
L-12219, April 25, 1962.
[4] Bombay
Department Store v. Commissioner of Customs, L-20489, June 22, 1965.