Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-19564 November 28, 1964
SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY, petitioner,
vs.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, respondent.
San Juan, Africa & Benedicto for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.
REYES, J.B.L., J.:
Petitioner seeks review of a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals (Customs Case No. 84) affirming the validity of the forfeiture of merchandise imported by said petitioner, Serree Investment Company.
The facts were submitted under a stipulation of facts, as follows:
1. That petitioner is the consignee of 500 packages of fresh potatoes imported from Hongkong which arrived in the Port of Manila on January 1, 1955 on board the SS "Straat Bali," Reg. No. 1384 Entry No. 86614- 14);
2. That the petitioner is likewise the consignee of 120 packages of garlic imported from Hongkong which arrived in the Port of Manila on October 30, 1954 on board the SS "Liberal," Reg. No. 1384 (Entry No. 26614-14);
3. That the shipments in question did not have any Central Bank Release Certificate submitted, for which reason they were seized by the Appraisers' Division of the Bureau of Customs for alleged violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 in relation to Secs. 1363(f) and 1250 of the Revised Administrative Code;
4. That ruling on the seizure and forfeiture proceedings, the Collector of Customs ordered the forfeiture of the aforementioned shipments in favor of the Government, from which ruling appeal was taken to the respondent Commissioner of Customs;
5. That upon request, petitioner was allowed to redeem under protest the forfeited shipments as per orders of Collector of Customs dated January 8, 1955 and December 18, 1955, upon payment of the redemption values thereof in the amounts of P7,859.91 and P25,520.46, respectively;
6. That thereupon, the petitioner filed a protest to test the validity of the redemption proceedings, which was denied by the Collector of Customs in its decision dated April 4, 1956;
7. That respondent Commissioner of Customs in his decision dated March 22, 1960, sustained the rulings of the Collector of Customs mentioned in paragraphs 5 and 7 hereof;
8. ...
The Court of Tax Appeals ruled against petitioner herein and upheld the forfeiture. Whereupon, the petitioner resorted to this Court, assigning the following errors:
1. The Court of Tax Appeals erred in not holding that the Central Bank has no power to regulate the importation of the merchandise in question.
2. The Court of Tax Appeals erred in not holding that Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 & 45 are void insofar at least as they sought to regulate the importation of the merchandise in question.
The objections of the petitioner, in his assignment of errors, against the validity of Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 of the Central Bank and the authority of the Commissioner of Customs to forfeit the merchandises in question were disposed of in a similar case involving the, same petitioner herein. In Commissioner of Customs vs. Serree Investment Company, L-12007, 16 May 1960, this Court, citing the case of Pascual vs. Commissioner of Customs, L-10797, 30 June 1959, stated:
... Even granting that the importations in question did not require an immediate sale of foreign exchange, their importation into the Philippines from another country will ultimately require the sale of such exchange. The currency of one country is not legal tender in another. To pay for imports, traders have to avail themselves of foreign exchange, which is the conversion of an amount of money or currency of one country into an equivalent amount of money or currency of another. Every import of goods or merchandise requires an immediate or future demand for foreign exchange.
Section 74, Republic Act No. 265, authorizes the Monetary Board, with the approval of the President, to temporarily suspend or restrict sales of exchange and to subject all transactions in gold and foreign exchange to license during an exchange crisis in order to protect the international reserve and to give the Monetary Board and the Government time in which to take constructive measures to combat such a crisis. Circular No. 44, prohibiting the release by the Commissioner of Customs of any item of import without the presentation of a release certificate issued by the Central Bank or any authorized agent bank in the form prescribed by the Monetary Board, and Circular No. 45, requiring "any person or entity who intends to import or receive goods from any foreign country for which no foreign exchange is required or will be required of the banks, to apply for a license from the Monetary Board to authorize such import," are measures taken to check the unregulated flow of foreign exchange from the country and are within the power of the Monetary Board.
Appellant's contention is that Congress has not authorized the Central Bank to issue regulations governing imports that do not require the sale of foreign exchange, because according to him, it would not have enacted into law Republic Act No. 1410. The contention assumes that the importations did not require the sale of foreign exchange, a fact which he failed to establish.
Appellant contends that assuming that the importations in question require the sale of foreign exchange in violation of Circular No. 44, yet they may not be forfeited under the said Circular because it does not expressly provide for the penalty of forfeiture. ... . Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code provides:
Vessels, cargo, merchandise, and other subjects and things shall, under the conditions hereinbelow specified, be subject to forfeiture.
xxx xxx xxx
(f) Any merchandise of prohibited importation or exportation, the importation or exportation of which is effected or attempted contrary to law, and all other merchandise which, in the opinion of the collector, have been used, are or were intended to be used as instrument in the importation or exportation of the former.
....But since the importations in question were made without the necessary import license issued by the Monetary Board pursuant to Circular No. 45 and the release certificates issued by the Central Bank or its authorized agent bank in the prescribed form pursuant to Circular No. 44, they fall within the class of "merchandise of prohibited importation" or merchandise "the importation ... of which is effected ... contrary to law" that the Commissioner of Customs may seize and order forfeited. ... .
The same views were upheld in Commissioner vs. Eastern Sea Trading, L-14279, 31 October 1961; Pascual vs. Collector of Customs, L-12219, 25 April 1962; Commissioner vs. Nepomuceno, L-11126, 31 March 1962; and Commissioner vs. Santos, L-11911, 30 March 1962.
Finding no error in the decision under review, the same is hereby affirmed, with costs against the petitioner.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
