G.R. No. L-23335 - De la Cruz vs. Court of Tax Appeals

In 1954 and 1955, petitioners Rosita C. de la Cruz and Julio T. de la Cruz received various shipments of foodstuff and textiles from Hongkong and Japan.
The importations were covered by bills of lading and commercial invoices; however, petitioners failed to present the necessary consular invoices and Central Bank release certificates mandated by Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45.

The Collector of Customs for the Port of Manila instituted seizure proceedings based on provisions of Sections 1363(f), 1250, and 1363(m)-3, 4, and 5 of the Revised Administrative Code.
Although the shipments were released from customs custody under bond after the payment of customs duties and taxes, they were still subject to administrative review.
After due hearing, the Collector of Customs found that the importations violated the requirements prescribed by Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, leading to an order for the forfeiture and confiscation of the bonds posted by the petitioners.

Petitioners subsequently appealed the Collector’s decision to the Commissioner of Customs; the Commissioner affirmed the Collector’s findings and order.
On February 13, 1963, petitioners filed a supplemental petition alleging that Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 had been repealed by Central Bank Circular No. 133 (issued on January 21, 1962), arguing that penalty of forfeiture incurred under the earlier circulars was abated by such repeal.

Petitioners contested that the case did not involve dollar importations, implying that the requirements of the circulars should not apply.
The stipulation of facts between the parties was challenged based on the erroneous premise that the importations involved the remittance of foreign exchange.

Whether the failure to present consular invoices and Central Bank release certificates constitutes a violation of these circulars, even if the importations did not involve dollar remittances.

Whether the repeal of Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 through Circular No. 133 abates the penalty of forfeiture imposed for non-compliance with the earlier circulars.

Whether the Customs authorities possess the jurisdiction and power to impose the penalty (forfeiture) for violations of the Central Bank Circulars, instead of such matters being subject solely to criminal prosecution on the initiative of the Central Bank.

Whether the fact that the goods were released from customs custody—under the condition that the bond amount be paid if forfeiture is later decreed—creates an estoppel preventing the Customs authorities from subsequently ordering the forfeiture.

Whether it was erroneous to conclude that the importations involved dollar remittances, despite the statutory and stipulatory requirement that all importations during the effectivity of Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 must be accompanied by a release certificate.