GR L 10979; (June, 1959) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-10979; June 30, 1959
FRANCISCO PASCUAL, petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent.
FACTS
The petitioner, Francisco Pascual, imported two shipments of foreign-made candies from Hongkong. The first shipment of 42 packages arrived on September 3, 1954, and the second shipment of 27 packages arrived on September 23, 1954. The Acting Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila ordered the forfeiture of these shipments for violating Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. The violations consisted of the shipments not being covered by a consular invoice from the Philippine Consulate in Hongkong or by a release certificate from the Central Bank or its authorized agent banks. The merchandise was released to the petitioner under surety bonds. The petitioner appealed the Collector’s decisions to the Commissioner of Customs, who affirmed them. He then appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals, which upheld the Commissioner’s decisions. The parties submitted the case on a stipulation of facts, and the petitioner filed a motion to reopen the cases to introduce evidence that the importations did not require the sale of foreign exchange, which the Court denied.
ISSUE
Whether the sixty-nine (69) packages of candies 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.
RULING
Yes, the shipments are subject to forfeiture. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals. The Court held that under Section 74 of Republic Act No. 265 , the Monetary Board, with the concurrence of at least five members and the approval of the President, could temporarily restrict sales of exchange and subject foreign exchange transactions to licensing during an exchange crisis. Pursuant to this authority, the Monetary Board issued Circular No. 44, which required a release certificate from the Central Bank or an authorized agent bank for the customs release of any import item, and Circular No. 45, which required a license for imports not requiring foreign exchange. The petitioner failed to present the required release certificates. The Court found no evidence that the importations did not involve dollar remittances or the sale of foreign exchange, noting the petitioner’s failure to indicate “NO DOLLAR REMITTANCE” on the entry declarations and the general mercantile practice that importations typically involve foreign exchange. The Court also held that the petitioner’s motion to reopen the cases was properly denied and that the Circulars were presumed validly promulgated as they were published in the Official Gazette. The seizure proceedings were regular, and the petitioner was not deprived of due process.