G.R. No. L-22988. June 30, 1969
FERMIN SARE, PETITIONER, VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENT.
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
Petitioner Fermin Sare
seeks the review of a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals affirming that of
respondent Commissioner of Customs.
There is no dispute about the facts, the same having been the
object of a stipulation, which, although designated “partial”, has
not been complemented by any evidence whatsoever.
It appears that petitioner had imported from Hongkong
into the Philippines,
the following:
1. Three (3) separate shipments of various merchandise, which arrived at
Manila on or about October 20, 1954, aboard the S.S. “Talisman” and
were declared under Entries Nos. 84027, 84028 and 84031;
2. Three (3) separate shipments of various merchandise which arrived at
Manila on December 11, 18 and 23, 1954, aboard, respectively, the S.S. Nervar, S.S. Hermod and S.S. Hessenstein, and were declared under entries Nos. 99510, 101581
and 102246-f; and
3. Three (3) separate shipments of various merchandise, which arrived at Manila
on December 25, 1954, and
January 14 and March 3, 1955,
respectively, the first two (2), aboard the S.S. Kambodia
and, the last, aboard the S.S. Erria, and were
declared, respectively, under entries Nos. 103972, 4191 and 78553.
All of these shipments were the object of seizure identification
proceedings, instituted by respondent and/or his duly authorized
representatives, for lack of the Central Bank Release Certificates required in
Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, in relation to Section 1363(f) of the
Revised Administrative Code. However, by
posting bonds in the aggregate sum of P78,311.57, petitioner secured the
release of the merchandise above referred to.
Subsequently, or on February 5, 10 and 18, 1960, respondent rendered
judgments in the forfeiture proceedings, directing the confiscation of the
aforementioned bonds and the payment in cash, jointly and severally, by
petitioner herein and the respective sureties, of the amounts of said bonds.
On appeal taken by petitioner herein, these judgments were
affirmed by the Court of Tax Appeals.
Hence, the present petition for review, upon the ground that the Court
of Tax Appeals had erred: (1) in
decreeing the forfeiture of the merchandise in question, notwithÂstanding the
fact that no such penalty is prescribed in Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and
45; (2) in ordering the forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Revised
Administrative Code, although the merchandise in question are not of
“prohibited importation” and have not been imÂported contrary to law;
and (3) in applying said Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, despite the alleged repeal
thereof by Central Bank Circular No. 133.
Petitioner’s appeal is manifestly devoid of merit. Indeed, in arguing that the forfeiture
decreed by the respondent is not authorized by Circulars Nos. 44 and 45,
petitioner conveniently overlooks the fact, agreed upon in the
aforementioned stipulation, that the seizure identification proceedings were
instituted for violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 “in
relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code”, which
explicitly prescribes said forfeiture.
Then, again, each and everyone of the issues raised by petiÂtioner
herein have already been repeatedly resolved by this Court adversely to
petitioner’s pretense. Thus, the
authority to decree the forfeiture of goods for violation of said Circulars
Nos. 44 and 45 was upheld in Pascual vs. Commissioner
of Customs,[1]
in which we ruled:
“Appellant contends that assuming that the imÂportations 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. Circular 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 required 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 AdministraÂtive Code provides:
‘Vessels, cargo, merchandise and other
objects and things shall, under the condiÂtions hereinbelow
specified, be subject to forfeiture:
xx xx xx
(f) Any merchandise of prohibited importation or
exportation, the importation or exportation of which is effected or attemptÂed
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 exportaÂtion 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 (49 Off. Gaz. 2189-2192). ApÂpellant failed to present to the Commissioner
of Customs release certificates issued by the Central Bank or its duly
authorized agent banks for the imÂportations in question. The Commissioner of CusÂtoms may, therefore, seize
them and order their forfeiture under the aforequoted
provisions of the Revised Administrative Code.”[2]
This view was reiterated in Commissioner of Customs vs. Serree Investment Co.,[3]
from which we quote:
“x x x 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 authoÂrized agent bank in the prescribed form pursuant to
Circular No. 44, they fall within the class of ‘merÂchandise of prohibited
importation’ or merchandise ‘the importation x x x of which is effected x x x conÂtrary to law’ that the Commissioner of Customs may
seize and order forfeited. x x x“[4]
Thus, it is now well settled that goods imported without the
release certificates required in Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 are “merchandise
of prohibited importation,” as this expression is used in said Section No.
1363(f). To this effect have been, among
others, Commissioner vs. Eastern Sea Trading,[5]
Commissioner vs. Santos,[6]
Commissioner vs. Nepomuceno,[7] Pascual vs. Commissioner of Customs,[8] Serree Investment Co. vs. ComÂmissioner of Customs,[9] Serree Investment Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs,[10]
and Lazaro vs. Commissioner of Customs.[11]
The theory to the effect that Central Bank Circular No. 133 has
repealed Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, and rendered ineffectual the forfeiture
imposable for violations of these two (2) circulars, prior to the issuance of
said Circular No. 133, was rejected by this Court in a previous case of the
very petitioner herein,[12]
upon the ground that paragraph 6 of said Circular No. 133 “in effect x x x reiterated the requirement of
a release certificate” contained in Circulars Nos. 44 and 45. In fact, this ruling had, prior thereto, been
adopted in other cases[13]
and was applied in a subsequent case.[14]
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be, as it is
hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
and Barredo,
JJ., concur.
Dizon and
Capistrano, JJ., did not take part.
[1]
L-10797, June 30, 1959.
[2]
Underscoring ours.
[3] L-12007,
May 16, 1960.
[4] Underscoring
ours.
[5] L-14279,
October 31, 1961.
[6] L-11911,
March 30, 1962.
[7] L-11126,
March 31, 1962.
[8] L-12219,
April 25, 1962.
[9] L-19564,
November 28, 1964.
[10] L-21217,
November 29, 1965.
[11] L-22511
& 22513, May 16, 1966.
[12] Sare v. Aseron, L-22380, Aug. 15, 1967.
[13] Felipe
Yupangco & Sons, Inc. v. Commissioner of
Customs, L-22259, Jan. 19, 1966; Bombay Dept. Store v. Commissioner of
CusÂtoms, L-20460, Sept. 30, 1965; Bombay Dept. Store vs. Commissioner
of Customs, L-20489, June 22, 1965.
[14] Litton
& Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, L-22516, Aug. 17, 1967.