Capulong v. Acting Commissioner of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Bienvenido Capulong imported merchandise from Hongkong on October 8, 1954, utilizing the no-dollar remittance system. The importation lacked the required Central Bank release certificate and import license mandated by Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, and relevant provisions of the Revised Administrative Code. 2. Procedural History: Following the institution of seizure proceedings, the imported goods were released to petitioner upon his submission of a surety bond. The Commissioner of Customs subsequently ordered the forfeiture of the goods and directed petitioner and his surety to pay the bond amount. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Tax Appeals upon appeal. 3. The Petition: This case is a petition for review of the Court of Tax Appeals' decision. Petitioner argues that his liabilities were abrogated by Central Bank Circular No. 133, that violations of Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 are not punishable by forfeiture, and that the goods were not imported contrary to law. The Supreme Court notes that these arguments have been previously resolved adversely to the petitioner.
Issue(s)
Whether the importation of goods under the no-dollar remittance system is subject to the requirements of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45. Whether violations of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 are punishable with forfeiture. Whether the goods imported by the petitioner were merchandise of prohibited importation or imported contrary to law. Whether Central Bank Circular No. 133 abrogated liabilities incurred under Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, holding that the importation was subject to forfeiture and the liabilities were not abrogated by subsequent circulars.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the importation is subject to Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45: The Court held that goods imported under the no-dollar remittance system are indeed subject to the requirements of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45. The Court explained that such importations represent either an immediate or potential demand for foreign exchange, necessitating a release certificate for the Central Bank to monitor the precise volume of all imports. This monitoring is crucial for the formulation and implementation of the Central Bank's policies. Therefore, the importation or attempt to import goods without the corresponding release certificate constituted a violation of the law. On whether violations are punishable with forfeiture: The Court affirmed that the penalty of forfeiture for the violations in question is explicitly provided in Section 1363 of the Revised Administrative Code. This section outlines the grounds for seizure and forfeiture of imported goods. The Court reiterated that the law mandates forfeiture for such violations, and this penalty was applicable in the present case. On whether the goods were of prohibited importation or imported contrary to law: The Court found that the petitioner admitted in the Court of Tax Appeals that the goods were imported in violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45. Consequently, they were subject to forfeiture under Section 1363 of the Revised Administrative Code. The admission by the petitioner established that the importation was contrary to law. On whether Central Bank Circular No. 133 abrogated liabilities: The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that Central Bank Circular No. 133 abrogated his liabilities. The Court noted that this pretense had already been resolved adversely to the petitioner and had been repeatedly decided by the Supreme Court. Subsequent circulars do not retroactively legitimize past violations unless explicitly stated, and Circular No. 133 did not provide such an abrogation for violations of Circulars Nos. 44 and 45.
Main Doctrine
Importations made under the no-dollar remittance system are subject to the requirements of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, including the production of a Central Bank release certificate and import license. Failure to comply renders the goods subject to forfeiture under Section 1363 of the Revised Administrative Code, and the forfeiture penalty is not abrogated by subsequent Central Bank circulars unless explicitly provided.