G.R. No. L-22989 May 14, 1966
BIENVENIDO CAPULONG, petitioner, vs. TIMOTEO Y. ASERON, in his capacity as Acting Commissioner of Customs, respondent.

FACTS

On October 20, 1954, petitioner Bienvenido Capulong imported 39 packages of various merchandise from Hongkong. The shipment, covered by Import Entry No. 34039, series of 1954, was not accompanied by an import license or a release certificate from the Central Bank as required by Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45. Consequently, the Commissioner of Customs ordered the forfeiture of the merchandise under the authority of said circulars and Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. The shipment was initially released to the petitioner under a surety bond (Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation Bond No. 109) in the amount of P22,410.00. On May 18, 1960, the Commissioner of Customs rendered a decision in the seizure proceedings declaring the bond confiscated and ordering the petitioner and the surety to pay the bond amount jointly and severally. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals, which affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the merchandise imported in violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 is subject to forfeiture, notwithstanding that said circulars do not expressly provide for the penalty of forfeiture.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, thereby upholding the forfeiture. The Court ruled that while Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 do not themselves prescribe the penalty of forfeiture, they are regulations issued pursuant to law and enforceable by the Bureau of Customs. Their violation falls under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, which authorizes the forfeiture of “any merchandise of prohibited importation” or merchandise “the importation … of which is effected … contrary to law.” The importation without the required release certificate is an importation effected contrary to law, making the goods subject to forfeiture. The Court cited previous jurisprudence (Pascual v. Commissioner of Customs) establishing this principle. The Court also rejected the petitioner’s contention that Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 were repealed by Central Bank Circular No. 133, noting that Circular No. 133 incorporated existing regulations by reference and served a common purpose. Even assuming a repeal, forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature, and a repeal would not be given retroactive effect to abate the case. The Court further held that the expiration of a law does not divest an administrative body of jurisdiction duly acquired while the law was in force. Costs were imposed on the petitioner.