GR L 12351; (June, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12351; June 29, 1965.
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, petitioner, vs. FELIX M. ICAMEN, respondent.
FACTS
Prior to September 1954, respondent Felix M. Icamen, a Captain in the Armed Forces of the Philippines assigned to the Philippine Mission in Tokyo, Japan, purchased a frigidaire and an electric range from the PX U.S. Exchange in Tokyo for his personal use. He shipped these goods on board the Philippine Navy vessel R.P.S. Misamis Oriental at Yokohama, Japan, consigning them to himself in Quezon City. Upon arrival in Manila on September 2, 1954, customs officials seized the goods as unmanifested merchandise under Section 1363(g) of the Revised Administrative Code and for being imported without the corresponding license in violation of Central Bank Circular No. 45. Forfeiture proceedings were initiated. The Collector of Customs ordered forfeiture, a decision affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs. On appeal, the Court of Tax Appeals ordered the release of the goods upon payment of duties and taxes.
ISSUE
1. Whether the goods are unmanifested merchandise under Section 1363(g) of the Revised Administrative Code.
2. Whether the importation violated Central Bank Circular No. 45.
RULING
1. No, the goods are not unmanifested merchandise. The Court of Tax Appeals found as a fact, supported by evidence, that there was an adequate manifest covering the goods. This is evidenced by correspondence between the Acting Commissioner of Customs and the Armed Forces, which resulted in the submission of two copies of the manifest prepared in compliance with Philippine Navy procedures. The Supreme Court found no sufficient evidence to overturn this finding.
2. No, the importation did not violate Central Bank Circular No. 45. The Court of Tax Appeals found that the goods were purchased by respondent using dollars received as salary and allowances while stationed in Tokyo. This importation did not involve the sale of foreign exchange from the Philippines, as the funds originated abroad. The importation occurred before Republic Act No. 1410 , which prohibited “no-dollar” importations under certain conditions, took effect.
The decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is affirmed.