Serree Investment Co. v. Commissioner of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Serree Investment Company was the consignee of 3,000 crates of onions that arrived at the Port of Manila on June 26, 1954. The shipment was seized by the Collector of Customs for violation of Executive Order No. 329 and Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. Procedural History: The Collector of Customs ordered the forfeiture of the shipment on February 15, 1956. Petitioner appealed to the Commissioner of Customs, who sustained the forfeiture on March 15, 1960. The Court of Tax Appeals affirmed this decision on March 19, 1963, ordering the forfeiture for having been imported without a Central Bank release certificate. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review, disputing the authority of the Central Bank to issue the circulars, arguing they regulated importations not requiring foreign exchange purchase, which exceeded its powers under Republic Act 265.
Issue(s)
Whether the Central Bank has the authority to issue Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 regulating importations. Whether the importation of onions without a Central Bank release certificate is subject to forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, upholding the forfeiture of the shipment in favor of the government. Costs were against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority of the Central Bank to issue Circulars Nos. 44 and 45: The Court reiterated its settled jurisprudence that the Central Bank possesses the authority to issue the questioned circulars. These circulars were measures taken to check the unregulated flow of foreign exchange from the country, a power granted to the Monetary Board under Section 74 of Republic Act No. 265, with the approval of the President, to suspend or restrict sales of exchange during an exchange crisis to protect the international reserve. The Court clarified that even if importations do not require an immediate sale of foreign exchange, they ultimately necessitate the demand for foreign exchange, as currency is not legal tender in other countries. Therefore, measures regulating such importations fall within the Central Bank's mandate. On the forfeiture of the shipment: The Court held that the merchandise in question was subject to forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. Since the importations were made without the necessary import license from the Monetary Board pursuant to Circular No. 45 and the release certificate from the Central Bank or its authorized agent bank pursuant to Circular No. 44, they fall under the classification of "merchandise of prohibited importation" or merchandise "the importation... of which is effected... contrary to law." Such merchandise can be validly seized and ordered forfeited by the Commissioner of Customs in favor of the government.
Main Doctrine
Importations made without the necessary import license from the Monetary Board or release certificate from the Central Bank, in violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, constitute merchandise of prohibited importation or importation effected contrary to law, and are thus subject to forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code.