Sare v. Commissioner of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Fermin Sare imported merchandise from Hongkong on October 28, 1954, and November 2, 1954. These importations lacked the required import licenses, release certificates mandated by Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45, and consular invoices. Consequently, the shipments were subjected to seizure and forfeiture proceedings by the Collector of Customs of Manila for violating Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45 in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. Procedural History: The goods were released to Sare under surety bonds. After hearing, the Collector of Customs declared the imported goods forfeited and ordered Sare to pay the government their value. Sare appealed to the Commissioner of Customs, who affirmed the decision. The Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) sustained the Commissioner of Customs. Sare then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The Petition raised two main issues: (1) the validity of the forfeiture, and (2) whether Central Bank Circular 133 repealed Circulars 44 and 45, and if so, whether such repeal abated the forfeiture.
Issue(s)
Whether the forfeiture of the imported goods is valid despite the absence of a forfeiture clause in Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45. Whether Central Bank Circular No. 133 repealed Circulars 44 and 45 and consequently abated the liability for forfeiture.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, upholding the forfeiture of the imported goods. Costs were against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the forfeiture is valid under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code (RAC). Although Central Bank (CB) Circular No. 44 does not specifically provide for the penalty of forfeiture, it is nonetheless subject to enforcement by the Bureau of Customs and is deemed part of the 'customs law' under Section 1419 of the RAC. Any merchandise imported in violation of a circular that has the force and effect of law is considered 'imported contrary to law.' The Court, applying the precedent in Pascual v. The Commissioner of Customs, emphasized that the Bureau of Customs has the authority to seize such goods. There is no legal distinction required between 'prohibited importation' and goods 'imported contrary to law' for the purpose of applying Section 1363(f). Since the petitioner failed to present the required release certificates, the importation was clearly contrary to the regulations then in effect. On Issue 2: The Court held that Central Bank Circular No. 133 did not repeal Circulars 44 and 45 in a manner that would abate the forfeiture. Paragraph 6 of Circular 133 specifically reiterated the requirement of a release certificate for importations. Therefore, the regulatory framework requiring such documentation remained substantially intact despite the issuance of the newer circular. Furthermore, even if Circular 133 were assumed to have repealed the earlier circulars, such a repeal does not legalize importations that were illegal at the time they were made. The illegal character of the importation was fixed at the moment the goods entered the jurisdiction without the necessary permits. Consequently, the government's right to forfeit the value of the goods, which had already vested upon the violation of the law, was not extinguished by the subsequent change in Central Bank regulations.
Main Doctrine
Importations made in violation of Central Bank Circulars requiring import licenses and release certificates are subject to forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code as importations contrary to law, even if the circulars themselves do not explicitly provide for forfeiture. Furthermore, a subsequent circular that reiterates the requirement of a release certificate does not effect a repeal that would legalize prior illegal importations.