G.R. No. L-20803, January 31, 1966
Chan Kian, doing business under the firm name of Shanghai Ting Ting Soy Factory, plaintiff-appellee, vs. The Collector of Customs of Manila, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The plaintiff-appellee, Chan Kian, imported several shipments of old newspapers. The Bureau of Customs seized these goods for alleged violations of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. Specifically, some shipments lacked the required Central Bank release certificates, while others did not match the descriptions in the presented certificates. On September 19, 1955, the Collector of Customs ordered the forfeiture of the goods and, as they had been delivered under bonds to the appellee, directed the appellee and his sureties to pay the aggregate sum of the bonds. The appellee’s appeal to the Commissioner of Customs was dismissed for being out of time, a dismissal affirmed by the Court of Tax Appeals and the Supreme Court. Upon the Collector’s demand for payment, the appellee filed a petition for prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the Collector’s decision and contending that Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 were null and void. The lower court granted the petition, declaring the circulars invalid and making permanent the preliminary injunction against the Collector.

ISSUE

Whether Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 are valid and enforceable, thereby authorizing the Collector of Customs to order the forfeiture of the imported goods for non-compliance.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and dismissed the appellee’s petition for prohibition. The Court held that Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 have been repeatedly upheld as valid and legal in previous decisions. The Court cited Bombay Department Store vs. Commissioner of Customs, which affirmed the Central Bank’s authority to issue such circulars and noted that these circulars were incorporated into subsequent regulations, such as Central Bank Circular No. 133. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the importation in violation of these circulars rendered the merchandise “prohibited importations” under the Revised Administrative Code, making them subject to forfeiture proceedings. The Collector of Customs therefore acted within his powers in ordering the forfeiture. The Court deemed it unnecessary to address the jurisdictional issue regarding the review of the Commissioner of Customs’ decisions by the Court of Tax Appeals under Republic Act No. 1125 . Costs were imposed on the appellee.