Sare v. Commissioner of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Fermin Sare imported several shipments of merchandise from Hong Kong into the Philippines between October 1954 and March 1955. These importations were declared under various entry numbers across multiple vessels. The Commissioner of Customs initiated seizure and identification proceedings against these shipments due to the absence of the required Central Bank Release Certificates, as mandated by Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, in conjunction with Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. Petitioner Sare secured the release of the merchandise by posting bonds totaling P78,311.57. 2. Procedural History: Following the seizure proceedings, the Commissioner of Customs rendered judgments on February 5, 10, and 18, 1960, ordering the confiscation of the posted bonds and payment in cash by petitioner and his sureties. Petitioner appealed these judgments to the Court of Tax Appeals, which affirmed the Commissioner's decisions. This current petition for review is brought before the Supreme Court following the adverse ruling by the Court of Tax Appeals. 3. The Petition: Petitioner Fermin Sare seeks review of the Court of Tax Appeals' decision, arguing that the forfeiture of the bonds was erroneous. His petition raises three main points: (1) that Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 do not prescribe forfeiture as a penalty; (2) that the forfeiture under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code is improper as the merchandise was not of prohibited importation or imported contrary to law; and (3) that Central Bank Circular No. 133 had repealed Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, rendering the forfeiture ineffectual. The petition is filed under the Court's review jurisdiction.
Issue(s)
Whether the forfeiture decreed by the respondent Commissioner of Customs is authorized by Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45. Whether the merchandise in question are considered "merchandise of prohibited importation" or imported contrary to law under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. Whether Central Bank Circular No. 133 repealed Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, thereby rendering the forfeiture imposable for violations of the latter ineffectual.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals, holding that the forfeiture of the bonds was proper. The Court ruled that goods imported without the required Central Bank Release Certificates are considered "merchandise of prohibited importation" under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, and are thus subject to forfeiture. The Court also held that Central Bank Circular No. 133 did not repeal Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, as it reiterated the requirement of a release certificate.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether forfeiture is authorized by Circulars Nos. 44 and 45: The Court clarified that while the Circulars themselves might not explicitly prescribe forfeiture, the seizure and forfeiture proceedings were instituted in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, which explicitly provides for forfeiture. The stipulation of facts confirmed that the proceedings were based on the violation of the Circulars in conjunction with the said provision of the Revised Administrative Code. Therefore, the forfeiture was legally grounded. On whether the merchandise constitutes "merchandise of prohibited importation" or imported contrary to law under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code: The Court definitively ruled that goods imported without the necessary release certificates required by Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 are indeed considered "merchandise of prohibited importation" as contemplated by Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. This interpretation has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court in numerous prior decisions, establishing a well-settled jurisprudence on the matter. The failure to present these certificates renders the importation contrary to law. On whether Central Bank Circular No. 133 repealed Circulars Nos. 44 and 45: The Court rejected the petitioner's theory that Central Bank Circular No. 133 repealed the earlier circulars. The Court pointed out that paragraph 6 of Circular No. 133, in effect, reiterated the requirement of a release certificate, which was a core component of Circulars Nos. 44 and 45. This reiteration meant that the obligations and requirements imposed by the earlier circulars remained in force and were not rendered ineffectual by the issuance of Circular No. 133. This ruling had been previously established in other cases involving the same petitioner and prior jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
Goods imported without the release certificates required by Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 are considered "merchandise of prohibited importation" under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, and are subject to forfeiture.