Leuterio v. Commissioner of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On May 22, 1955, a shipment of 34 bales of cotton cloth consigned to petitioner Estanislao M. Leuterio arrived at the port of Manila from Hongkong. The consignee could not present a Central Bank release certificate or import license, nor a consular invoice. Procedural History: On May 25, 1955, the shipment became subject to seizure and forfeiture proceedings for violation of Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45. However, the Customs Collector of Manila released the shipment upon a bond posted by Paramount Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. On March 9, 1960, the Manila Collector of Customs, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Pascual vs. Commissioner of Customs, directed the forfeiture of the shipment and ordered petitioner and the surety company to pay its value. The Commissioner of Customs affirmed this decision. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). During the pendency of the case in the CTA, the Central Bank issued Circular 133, which petitioner argued repealed Circular 45 and extinguished the forfeiture penalty. On July 2, 1963, the CTA affirmed the Commissioner's decision. The Petition: Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Central Bank Circular 133 repealed Circular 45, and that Republic Act 1410, which prohibited no-dollar importations, also affected the forfeiture proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether the forfeiture of the goods in question was in accordance with law. Whether Central Bank Circular 133 repealed Central Bank Circular 45, thereby extinguishing the forfeiture penalty. Whether Republic Act 1410 applied to the importation in question.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, upholding the forfeiture of the shipment. Costs were against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the legality of the forfeiture: The Court held that the shipment was a "no-dollar remittance" importation and was governed by Central Bank Circular 45. Petitioner failed to present the required import license under Circular 45, rendering the importation illegal. The Court reiterated the established jurisprudence that any no-dollar shipment without a license violates Circular 45 and is subject to seizure and forfeiture as merchandise imported contrary to law. The preamble of Circular 45 and the ruling in Capulong vs. Aseron were cited to emphasize the purpose of these circulars in controlling imports to address the country's financial crisis. On the effect of Central Bank Circular 133: The Court found that Central Bank Circular 133, which amended Circular 121 on foreign exchange transactions, governs dealings requiring the purchase of foreign exchange. Given that the importation in question was on a no-dollar remittance basis, meaning no foreign exchange was required, Circular 133 was deemed irrelevant to the case. Therefore, it could not have repealed Circular 45 or extinguished the forfeiture penalty. On the applicability of Republic Act 1410: The Court ruled that Republic Act 1410, enacted on September 10, 1955, prohibiting no-dollar importations, did not apply to the shipment that arrived on May 22, 1955. Furthermore, Section 3 of Republic Act 1410 explicitly states that goods and commodities previously imported on a no-dollar remittance basis at the time of the Act's approval shall not be affected. The Court cited its previous holding that such importations do not come within the operation of Republic Act 1410 due to this savings clause.
Main Doctrine
Importations made without the required license under Central Bank Circular 45 are subject to seizure and forfeiture, and subsequent legislative changes do not abate liabilities incurred prior to their enactment, especially when savings clauses exempt prior importations.