GR L 21800; (June, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21800 June 22, 1968
ESTANISLAO M. LEUTERIO, petitioner, vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent.
FACTS
On May 22, 1955, a shipment of 34 bales of cotton cloth from Hongkong consigned to petitioner Estanislao M. Leuterio arrived at the Port of Manila. The consignee could not present a Central Bank release certificate or import license and a consular invoice. Consequently, on May 25, 1955, the shipment became the subject of seizure and forfeiture proceedings before the Collector of Customs for violation of Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45. The Collector released the shipment upon a bond. On March 9, 1960, after this Court upheld the validity of the circulars in Pascual vs. Commissioner of Customs, the Collector ordered the forfeiture of the shipment and directed Leuterio and the surety to pay its value. The Commissioner of Customs affirmed. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals. During the pendency of that appeal, the Central Bank issued Circular 133, providing for the gradual lifting of restrictions on foreign transactions. Petitioner argued that Circular 133 repealed Circular 45, extinguishing the penalty of forfeiture. The Court of Tax Appeals affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.
ISSUE
Was the forfeiture of the goods in accordance with law?
RULING
Yes, the forfeiture was in accordance with law. The shipment was a “no-dollar remittance” importation, governed by Central Bank Circular 45, which required an import license for such goods. Petitioner failed to present the required import license, rendering the importation illegal and subject to seizure and forfeiture. The Court rejected petitioner’s arguments: (1) Republic Act 1410, which later prohibited “no-dollar” importations, did not apply because the shipment arrived before its enactment, and its Section 3 expressly exempted goods previously imported; and (2) Central Bank Circular 133, which amended rules on foreign exchange transactions, was irrelevant as it governed dealings requiring purchase of foreign exchange, not the no-dollar remittance importation in question. The judgment of the Court of Tax Appeals was affirmed.