GR L 23334 23451; (February, 1968) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23334 and L-23451; February 29, 1968
JUANA T. DE LA CRUZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF TAX APPEALS and THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner, Juana T. de la Cruz, imported various shipments of merchandise from Hongkong in 1955. The shipments were declared in customs entries but were not supported by consular invoices and Central Bank release certificates. Consequently, the Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila ordered the seizure of the goods for alleged violations of Central Bank Circular Nos. 44 and 45 in relation to Sections 1363(f) and 1250 of the Revised Administrative Code. The goods were released to the petitioner under surety bonds pending the seizure proceedings. The Collector of Customs later ordered the petitioner and her surety to pay jointly and severally the full amount of the bonds, a decision affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs and, on appeal, by the Court of Tax Appeals. The parties stipulated that the importations involved “no-dollar remittances or the sale of foreign exchange.”
ISSUE
Whether the importations made without a Central Bank release certificate, despite involving no-dollar remittances, are in violation of Central Bank Circular Nos. 44 and 45, justifying their seizure and the forfeiture of the bonds.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals. It held that under the settled doctrine, all imports, including no-dollar importations made while Central Bank Circular Nos. 44 and 45 were in force, required a Central Bank release certificate. This requirement was based on the theory that all imports represent an immediate or potential demand for foreign exchange, necessary for the Central Bank’s policy guidance. The attempt to import goods without the required certificate constituted a violation of the relevant sections of the Revised Administrative Code, subject to forfeiture. The liabilities incurred were not extinguished by the subsequent promulgation of Central Bank Circular No. 133. The enforcement of customs laws, including seizures and forfeitures, is within the authority of the Commissioner of Customs, reviewable by the Court of Tax Appeals. By securing the release of the goods under bonds that acknowledged the government’s right to demand payment if forfeiture was decreed, the petitioner was estopped from questioning such right.