GR L 22380; (August, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22380; August 15, 1967
FERMIN SARE, petitioner, vs. TIMOTEO Y. ASERON, in his capacity as the Acting Commissioner of Customs, respondent.
FACTS
On October 28, 1954, and November 2, 1954, petitioner Fermin Sare imported three shipments of various merchandise from Hongkong. The shipments were accompanied by bills of lading and commercial invoices but lacked the required import licenses and release certificates mandated by Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45, as well as consular invoices. Consequently, the Collector of Customs of Manila initiated seizure and forfeiture proceedings against the shipments for violating the said circulars in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. The goods were released to Sare under surety bonds after he paid the customs duties and sales taxes. On April 28, 1955, the Collector of Customs declared the goods forfeited and, since they had been released, ordered Sare to pay the government their value. This decision was affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs and subsequently by the Court of Tax Appeals, prompting Sare to appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
1. Whether the forfeiture of the imported goods for violation of Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45 is valid.
2. Whether Central Bank Circular 133 repealed Circulars 44 and 45, and if so, whether such repeal abated the forfeiture.
RULING
1. Yes, the forfeiture is valid. The Supreme Court, citing its precedent in Pascual v. The Commissioner of Customs, ruled that while Circulars 44 and 45 do not explicitly provide for the penalty of forfeiture, they are enforceable by the Bureau of Customs and form part of customs law under Section 1419 of the Revised Administrative Code. Therefore, merchandise imported in violation of these circulars is subject to forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, which mandates forfeiture for all merchandise imported contrary to law. The Court rejected the distinction between “prohibited importation” and “imported contrary to law,” as Circular 44 penalizes any importation without the required release certificate, making such a distinction legally inconsequential.
2. No, Central Bank Circular 133 did not repeal Circulars 44 and 45, and even assuming it did, the repeal would not legalize prior illegal importations. The Court, referencing Bombay Department Store v. Commissioner of Customs, held that Circular 133 did not repeal Circulars 44 and 45 because it reiterated the requirement of a release certificate. Even assuming arguendo that a repeal occurred, such repeal would not abate the forfeiture proceedings, as it would not legalize importations that were illegal at the time they were made.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The decision appealed from is affirmed. Costs against appellant.