G.R. No. L-33471 January 31, 1972
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS and EUSEBIO DICHOCO, respondents.

FACTS

A shipment of 438 packages of foodstuffs, consigned to Eusebio Dichoco, arrived at the Port of Manila. The Collector of Customs issued a warrant of seizure and detention, alleging a violation of the Tariff and Customs Code for failure to present the required Central Bank release certificates, as the importation was classified as non-essential consumer goods under pertinent Central Bank circulars. The Collector decreed forfeiture, a decision affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs. Dichoco filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), including a motion for the release of the goods under a cash bond, which the CTA initially granted.
The Commissioner of Customs moved for reconsideration, arguing that goods imported without the necessary release certificates are considered “prohibited importation” under the law and, pursuant to Section 2301 of the Tariff and Customs Code, cannot be released under bond. The CTA initially reversed itself, agreeing with the Commissioner. However, upon Dichoco’s motion for reconsideration, the CTA reinstated its original order for release under bond and later ordered the Commissioner to comply, threatening contempt proceedings.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Tax Appeals acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction in ordering the release under bond of imported goods seized for alleged violation of Central Bank circulars requiring release certificates.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court annulled the CTA’s resolutions. The legal logic is anchored on the statutory distinction between importations that are merely “liable to seizure” and those that are absolutely “prohibited.” Violations of Central Bank circulars requiring release certificates for non-essential imports fall under Section 2530(f) of the Tariff and Customs Code, which explicitly declares such importations to be “prohibited.” The Court, citing precedent, held that merchandise of prohibited importation cannot be released under any bond, as expressly stated in the last paragraph of Section 2301 of the same Code. The CTA’s authority to order release under bond under Section 2312 of the Code applies only to importations not of prohibited character. By ordering the release under bond of goods deemed prohibited by law, the CTA exercised a power it did not possess, thereby acting without or in excess of its jurisdiction. The proper remedy for such an interlocutory order was a petition for certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted, making the temporary restraining order permanent.