Case Digest (G.R. No. L-21212)
Facts:
The Commissioner of Customs and the Collector of Customs, Petitioners, vs. Eastern Sea Trading, Respondent, G.R. No. L-14279, October 31, 1961, the Supreme Court En Banc, Concepcion, J., writing for the Court.Eastern Sea Trading was consignee of several shipments of onions and garlic that arrived at the Port of Manila between August 25 and September 7, 1954, some from Japan and others from Hong Kong. Because none of these shipments bore the certificate required by Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, the shipments were seized and subjected to forfeiture proceedings for alleged violations of section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code in relation to those Central Bank circulars.
The Collector of Customs of Manila rendered a decision on September 4, 1956 declaring the goods forfeited to the Government. Meanwhile, by orders of the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Cases Nos. 23942 and 23852, the goods had been released to Eastern Sea Trading on surety bonds with the Alto Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. as surety; the Collector directed payment under those bonds within thirty days. On appeal, the Commissioner of Customs affirmed the Collector’s forfeiture decision on December 27, 1956.
Eastern Sea Trading sought review in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). The CTA reversed the Commissioner’s decision and ordered cancellation and withdrawal of the bonds. The CTA’s reversal rested on three principal contentions: (a) the Central Bank lacked authority to regulate transactions not involving foreign exchange, so Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 were void as applied to “no-dollar” imports; (b) seizures of shipments from Japan could not be justified under Executive Order No. 328 insofar as it implemented an executive agreement that, the CTA doubted, required Senate concurrence; and (c) because the Import Control Commission no longer existed, there was no agency authorized to issue the import licenses EO No. 328 purported to require.
The Commissioner of Customs filed a petition for review in the Supreme Court to overturn the CTA’s judgment....(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Central Bank have authority to regulate “no-dollar” imports, and are Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 valid?
- Is the executive agreement implemented by Executive Order No. 328 valid and enforceable without the concurrence of the Senate so as to support licensing requirements and forfeiture?
- Did the abolition of the Import Control Commission render the import-license requirement unenforceable by leaving no age...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)