Case Digest (G.R. No. L-11126)
Facts:
The Commissioner of Customs v. Fructuoso Nepomuceno, G.R. No. L-11126, March 31, 1962, the Supreme Court En Banc, Paredes, J., writing for the Court.Fructuoso Nepomuceno (respondent) was consignee of two shipments of garlic (83 and 100 packages) shipped from Hong Kong and arriving in Manila on August 27 and 31, 1954, as shown by Customs Entry Declarations Nos. 68225 and 69502 and the corresponding invoices and bills of lading. The Collector of Customs declared the shipments subject to seizure and forfeiture (Seizure Identification Nos. 1843 and 1885). The acting Collector ordered forfeiture and required payment in cash of amounts covered by surety bonds posted for release; the Commissioner of Customs affirmed that decision on March 31, 1955.
Nepomuceno filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). He contended that Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, upon which the seizure was predicated, did not apply to "no‑dollar" importations (imports that allegedly did not require foreign exchange) and that the shipments did not fall within Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code. The Customs respondents defended the seizure, asserting the Circulars had the force of law and that, even if no foreign exchange was shown to have been paid, such importations ordinarily implicated future foreign exchange transactions and evaded statutory controls.
The parties submitted an Agreement of Facts to the CTA which stipulated, among other matters, that the garlic shipments were designated no‑dollar importations, lacked consular invoices or Central Bank release certificates, were seized pursuant to Sec. 1363(f) and Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, and had been released under court orders upon surety bonds. The only remaining controversies were legal: whether Circulars No. 44 and No. 45 could legally form the basis for seizure and whether the seizure and forfeiture were valid.
On July 26, 1956, the Court of Tax Appeals reversed the Commissioner, holding that the Central Bank lacked authority to regulate imports not involving foreign exchange and declaring the Circulars ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 lawfully regulate importations designated as "no‑dollar imports"?
- Were the seizure and forfeiture of the garlic shipments valid under the Customs forfeiture statute (Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code) in vie...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)