Bombay Department Store v. Commissioner of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The petitioner, Bombay Department Store, imported a case of merchandise that, upon examination, contained undeclared items: 239 dozens of nylon socks and 29,715 rayon labels, in addition to declared nylon socks and stockings. The accompanying documents misrepresented the contents, leading to a discrepancy with the Central Bank Release Certificate. This violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 triggered seizure proceedings for alleged prohibited importation. 2. Procedural History: The Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila ordered the forfeiture of the bond filed by the petitioner and its surety, requiring joint and several payment of P3,627.80. This decision was affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs upon appeal. Subsequently, the petitioner appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals, which also ruled against the petitioner, affirming the prior decisions. 3. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review of the Court of Tax Appeals' decision, raising five grounds. These include claims that Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 are void, were impliedly repealed by Circular No. 133, and that the Central Bank Act does not provide for forfeiture. The petitioner also argues the Commissioner of Customs lacked authority to seize and forfeit the merchandise and that no misdeclaration occurred.
Issue(s)
Whether Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 are null and void. Whether Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 were impliedly repealed by Central Bank Circular No. 133. Whether the Central Bank Act provides for the forfeiture of articles imported without the requisite certificate. Whether the Commissioner of Customs has the authority to seize and decree the forfeiture of the merchandise. Whether there was a misdeclaration or wrongful declaration of the shipment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, ordering the petitioner and the surety to pay jointly and severally to the Government the sum of P3,627.80, representing the appraised value of the imported goods. Costs were against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45: The Court reiterated its consistent rulings upholding the authority of the Central Bank to issue these circulars and affirming their legality. Previous decisions, such as Commissioner of Customs vs. Santos, et al. and Commissioner of Customs, et al. vs. Eastern Sea Trading, were cited as precedents establishing the validity of these regulations. The Court emphasized that these circulars are crucial for regulating foreign exchange transactions and importations. On the alleged repeal by implication: The Court found no implied repeal of Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 by Circular No. 133. It noted that Circular No. 133, similar to Circular No. 44, requires the presentation of a release certificate for imported goods. Furthermore, Circular No. 133 explicitly incorporated existing rules and regulations not inconsistent with its provisions, including Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, thereby reinforcing their continued applicability. On the Central Bank Act and forfeiture: The Court clarified that the merchandise in question acquired the status of "merchandise of prohibited importations" due to its violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45. Consequently, it became subject to forfeiture proceedings as prescribed by Sections 1363 (f) and (m) 3 and 4 of the Revised Administrative Code. The Court referenced Tong Tek vs. Commissioner of Customs and People vs. Que Po Lay to support the principle that such violations lead to forfeiture. On the Commissioner of Customs' authority: The Court affirmed the Commissioner of Customs' authority to seize and decree forfeiture. It cited previous rulings, such as Roxas vs. Sayoc and Golay-Buchell & Cia. vs. Commissioner of Customs, which held that the expiration of Republic Act No. 650 did not divest the Commissioner of his jurisdiction over pending forfeiture cases. These proceedings are in the nature of in rem actions, allowing the Commissioner to act on them. On the existence of misdeclaration: The Court found that the petitioner's wrongful and fraudulent intent in importing undeclared and misrepresented articles was evident. This was deduced from the petitioner's failure to prove that the undeclared goods were inadvertently shipped, its inaction to export the undeclared merchandise, and its subsequent act of securing the release of these articles. The Court invoked the principle from U.S. vs. Four Packages of Cut Diamonds, stating that fraud attaches to goods imported on a false invoice, making them subject to forfeiture regardless of the consignee's innocence.
Main Doctrine
The importation of merchandise in violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 renders the goods subject to forfeiture proceedings under the Revised Administrative Code, and the filing of a bond for the release of such goods does not absolve the importer from liability for the appraised value thereof in case of forfeiture.