G.R. No. L-10508. November 29, 1960
PO ENG TRADING, PETITIONER VS. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, RESPONDENT.
DIZON, J.:
in connection with the importation of 42 cases of rubber boots from Hongkong. On
July 14 of the same year, 42 cases consigned to appellant arrived at the Port of
Manila on board the SS Schwabenstein, shipped by Tick Yau, of Hongkong. The
shipment was declared in Entry No. 58929 (Exhibits E and 5) as 42 cases of
“Rubber Boots for Miners” and was covered by a Bill of Lading (Exhibits B and
2), a Commercial Invoice (Exhibits D-3 and 4-C), a Joint Certificate of Origin
(Exhibits D-l and 4-A), Consular Invoice No. 1326 (Exhibits D and 4) and Central
Bank Release Certificate No. RC-8367 (Exhibits C and 3). All these documents
describe the shipment as 42 cases of “Rubber Boots for Miners” and the Central
Bank Release Certificate classify the goods as “NEP”, Code No. 850112.
As upon examination made on July 23, 1954 by Customs examiner Magno Joves, 13
of the cases were found to contain rubber boots for ladies and children, they
were ordered seized because their attempted importation was in violation of
Central Bank Circular No. 44, in relation to Section 1363 (f) of the Revised
Administrative Code.
Appellant paid the estimated duties and sales tax on the whole shipment
(Exhibits A and A-1) and also filed a Surety Bond No. 54/4417, dated August 20,
1954 and issued by the Paramount Surety & Insurance Company, Inc., to secure
the release of the 13 cases. In the corresponding seizure proceedings had in the
Manila Custom House the Commissioner of Customs, on January 24, 1955, rendered
decision ordering the forfeiture of the 13 cases and releasing the others, upon
the ground that rubber boots for ladies and children did not fall under
Commodity Code No. 850112, mentioned in the Central Bank Release Certificate,
which authorized the importation of rubber boots “for miners only”. Upon denial
of appellant’s motion for reconsideration, it filed a petition for review with
the Court of Tax Appeals, but the latter, on December 10, 1955, affirmed the
decision of the Commissioner of Customs.
The question raised in this appeal are the following: (1) whether or not the
boots in question-which appellant admits do not fall within the meaning of
Commodity Code No. 850112 which refers to rubber boots for miners only are of
“prohibited importation”, and (2) whether said boots may be forfeited under
Circular No. 44 of the Central Bank, in relation to’ Sections 1363 (f) and 1419
of the Revised Administrative Code.
Anent the first question, it is not denied that Commodity Code No. 850112
specifically .mentions and authorizes the importation of “Boots, Rubber (for
miners only)”. The boots for women and children in question-which appellant’s
brief itself calls “ordinary boots for ladies and children” (p. 3)-are
undoubtedly beyond the scope of this Commodity Code, not being boots for miners
at all. If the Central Bank had in mind authorizing the importation of all kinds
of rubber boots, its Circular No. 44 would not have limited importation
exclusively to rubber boots “for miners”. Appellant contends that the boots in
question are not included in any of the Code Numbers enumerated in the
Statistical Classification of Commodities issued by the Central Bank to
implement its Circular No. 44. It is believed, however, that they fall under UI,
meaning “Unclassified List Category” (Appellant’s brief p. 7) the importation of
which is completely banned-as admitted by appellant. But even assuming that
appellant’s contention in this regard is correct, it does not justify the
conclusion it draws, namely, that the importation of the boots for women and
children in question “is not limited, restricted, regulated, or controlled, much
less banned or prohibited by the Central Bank.” As admitted by appellant, the
Central Bank has the power to control foreign exchange and allocate the same to
finance importation of goods. It is obvious that it was in the exercise of such
power that the Central Bank issued its Circular No. 44 and the implementing-
Statistical Classification of Commodities mentioned heretofore classifying and
listing various articles for importation purposes. Equally obvious therefore is
that goods not included in such classification are not subject to importation
upon the principle of Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
Central Bank Circular No. 44, implementing Republic Act 265, has the effect
of a Customs law as defined in the last paragraph of Section 1419, Revised
Administrative Code. In accordance with Section 1250, of the Revised
Administrative Code, the Collector of Customs has jurisdiction, indeed, has the
duty to exercise jurisdiction to prevent importation or otherwise secure
compliance with all legal requirements in the case of merchandise of
prohibited importation or subject to importation only upon conditions
prescribed by law. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, he may subject to
forfeiture cargoes and other objects of prohibited importation, in accordance
with Section 1363(f), Revised Administrative Code.
Central Bank Circular No. 44-approved on June 18, 1953, and published in the
Official Gazette in June 19, 1953 (49 Off. Gaz. No. 6, p. 2192)-has the force
and effect of law (People vs. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil., 640; 50 Off. Gaz.
4850). It clearly provides that no merchandise shall be released by the Bureau
of Customs without the presentation of a Central Bank release certificate. As
the certificate issued in this case calls only for rubber boots “for miners”,
and-as stated heretofore-boots for women and children do not fall within the
meaning of Commodity Code No. 850112 which authorizes the importation of rubber
boots “for miners only”, the inevitable conclusion is that their importation is
prohibited and are clearly subject to forfeiture in accordance with Section 1363
of the Revised Administrative Code.
Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with, costs.
Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angela, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes,
J.B.L., Barrera, Gutierrez David, and Paredes, JJ., concur.
Decision affirmed.