Capulong v. Commissioner of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Bienvenido Capulong imported 39 packages of merchandise from Hong Kong in October 1954. The importation was not covered by the required import license or release certificate from the Central Bank of the Philippines, as mandated by Circulars Nos. 44 and 45. Consequently, the Commissioner of Customs initiated forfeiture proceedings against the shipment. 2. Procedural History: The Commissioner of Customs rendered a judgment on May 18, 1960, declaring the imported merchandise forfeited and ordering petitioner and his surety, Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation, to pay P22,410.00 jointly and severally. Petitioner sought review of this decision before the Court of Tax Appeals, which affirmed the Commissioner's judgment. Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court for further review. 3. The Petition: Petitioner argues that the Court of Tax Appeals erred in upholding the forfeiture because Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 do not explicitly provide for forfeiture as a penalty. Petitioner also contends that Central Bank Circular No. 133 repealed Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, and that the Commissioner of Customs lost jurisdiction upon the expiration of Republic Act No. 650. The Supreme Court, in its review, addresses these arguments, referencing prior rulings that uphold forfeiture for violations of Central Bank circulars when correlated with Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, and asserting that forfeiture proceedings are civil and not abated by repeal or expiration of laws.
Issue(s)
Whether the merchandise imported in violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 is subject to forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. Whether Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 were repealed by Central Bank Circular No. 133, and if so, whether this abates the forfeiture proceedings. Whether the Commissioner of Customs retained jurisdiction over the case despite the expiration of Republic Act No. 650.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, upholding the forfeiture of the imported merchandise and the confiscation of the surety bond. Costs were against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the forfeiture of merchandise for violation of Central Bank Circulars: The Court held that importations effected contrary to law are subject to forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, being regulations issued pursuant to law and enforceable by the Bureau of Customs, form part of the customs law. Therefore, their violation falls within the purview of Section 1363(f), classifying the importation as one "effected contrary to law," even if not strictly a "prohibited importation." The Court reiterated its stance in previous decisions, emphasizing that to rule otherwise would render nugatory the purpose of the Central Bank's authority to regulate foreign exchange during a crisis. On the repeal of Central Bank Circulars and abatement of proceedings: The Court found no merit in the contention that Central Bank Circular No. 133 repealed Circulars Nos. 44 and 45. It explained that Circular No. 133 reenacted the previous circulars by incorporating existing regulations not inconsistent with it. Furthermore, even if there was an implied repeal, it could not abate the forfeiture case because forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature, not criminal, and thus, the repeal cannot be given retroactive effect. The primary purpose of requiring release certificates is to monitor imports and manage the country's financial crisis. On the retention of jurisdiction: The Court affirmed the settled rule that a court or administrative body that has acquired jurisdiction over a case retains it even after the expiration of the law governing the case. In this instance, the Commissioner of Customs acquired jurisdiction over the seizure proceedings while Republic Act No. 650 was in force. The mere expiration of the Act did not divest the Commissioner of his duly acquired jurisdiction. The core issue was the legality of the Collector's decision, which could not be abated by the expiration of the law under which it was rendered. The expiration of the law did not legitimize the illegal importation or nullify the seizure and forfeiture order.
Main Doctrine
Importations effected contrary to law, even if not strictly prohibited, are subject to forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, and Central Bank Circulars, when enforceable by the Bureau of Customs, form part of customs law. The repeal of a law or circular does not abate forfeiture proceedings, which are civil in nature.