Capulong v. Acting Commissioner of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Bienvenido Capulong imported 63 packages of assorted merchandise from Hongkong through the no-dollar remittance system, without an import license and release certificate from the Central Bank. Consequently, the Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila seized the shipment for alleged violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. The shipment was later released to the petitioner upon posting of a surety bond by Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation. Procedural History: The Commissioner of Customs declared the forfeiture of the articles in favor of the government and ordered the petitioner and the surety to pay the full amount of the bond. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), which affirmed the Commissioner's decision. A motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition for review. The Petition: Petitioner questions the propriety of the forfeiture, arguing that Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 were repealed by Central Bank Circular No. 133.
Issue(s)
Whether the forfeiture of the goods for alleged violation of CB Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, in relation to Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, was proper. Whether CB Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 were repealed by CB Circular No. 133.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of forfeiture: The Court reiterated its ruling in Eugenia Manabat Vda. de Lopez, et al. vs. The Hon. Court of Tax Appeals, et al. that while Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 do not expressly provide for forfeiture, such penalty is justified under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. This section authorizes the forfeiture of "any merchandise of prohibited importation or exportation, the importation or exportation of which is effected or attempted 'contrary to law.'" The Court explained that Circulars 44 and 45 should be correlated to Section 1363 of the Administrative Code. Although goods imported in violation of these circulars may not be considered "merchandise of prohibited importation," they fall within the category of merchandise imported "contrary to law." This is because regulations issued pursuant to customs laws form part thereof, and thus, a violation of these regulations can be regarded as coming within the purview of Section 1363(f). On the repeal of CB Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 by CB Circular No. 133: The Court held that CB Circular No. 133 did not repeal CB Circulars Nos. 44 and 45. Instead, it re-enacted them by providing that all existing regulations not inconsistent with CB Circular No. 133 are deemed incorporated and made integral parts thereof by reference. The Court emphasized that both sets of circulars share a common purpose: to require the presentation of a release certificate from the Central Bank before any importation may be made to the Philippines. This is to enable the Central Bank to monitor and study the volume of imports to address the country's financial crisis. Therefore, the contention that CB Circular No. 133 repealed the earlier circulars was deemed without merit.
Main Doctrine
Importations made in violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, even if not expressly classified as prohibited, are considered importations made 'contrary to law' under Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, justifying forfeiture.