Case Digest (G.R. No. L-22990)
Facts:
Bienvenido Capulong v. The Acting Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. L-22990. May 19, 1966, the Supreme Court En Banc, Bautista Angelo, J., writing for the Court.On October 15, 1954, petitioner Bienvenido Capulong imported thirteen packages of salted fish in bulk and hams from Hong Kong, declared under Import Entry No. 81851, series of 1954. The shipment was not accompanied by an import license or a release certificate issued in the form required by Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45; pursuant to those Circulars and Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code, the Commissioner of Customs ordered the merchandise forfeited.
Although seized and declared forfeited, the goods were released and delivered to petitioner under Surety Bond No. 117 in the amount of P8,448.00 executed by the Pioneer Insurance & Surety Corporation. On June 2, 1960, the Commissioner of Customs rendered judgment in the seizure proceedings declaring the bond forfeited and ordered petitioner and the surety to pay jointly and severally P8,418.00 to the Bureau of Customs within 30 days in accordance with the bond’s terms.
Petitioner sought review before the Court of Tax Appeals, which after hearing affirmed the Commissioner's judgment and imposed costs against petitioner. Petitioner then brought the case for review to the Supreme Court. The parties litigated whether forfeiture could be ordered for breach of Central Bank Circulars that do not expressly pr...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the expiration of Republic Act No. 650 divest the Commissioner of Customs of jurisdiction over the forfeiture proceedings?
- Were Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 repealed by the later circular (referred to by petitioner) such that forfeiture could no longer be enforced?
- May merchandise be forfeited for importation made in violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, even though those Circulars...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)