Case Digest (G.R. No. L-9810)
Facts:
In Estanislao Leuterio v. Commissioner of Customs, petitioner Leuterio imported 100 crates of onions from Kobe, Japan, which arrived in Manila on September 19, 1954. On December 15, 1954, the Secretary of Finance ruled that the onions were undervalued—declared at $1.20 per crate instead of the true $3.20—and assessed additional duties under the Anti-Dumping Law, reserving further actions for customs violations. Five days later, the Collector of Customs seized and forfeited the shipment under Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, Executive Order No. 328, and section 1363(m) 3, 4, and 5 of the Revised Administrative Code, prompting Leuterio to redeem the goods at P1,175.28. The petitioner then sought review in the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), claiming the Central Bank lacked authority to issue the Circulars, that import controls had expired, that the Barter Trade Agreement did not prohibit onions from Japan, and that EO 328 unlawfully exercised legislative power. The CommissionerCase Digest (G.R. No. L-9810)
Facts:
- Importation and seizure
- On September 19, 1954, 100 crates of onions shipped from Kobe, Japan, consigned to petitioner Estanislao Leuterio, arrived at the Port of Manila.
- On December 20, 1954, the Collector of Customs seized and declared the shipment forfeited for alleged violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, section 1383(m)3-5 of the Revised Administrative Code, and Executive Order No. 328.
- Secretary of Finance determination
- On December 15, 1954, the Secretary of Finance found a violation of the Anti-Dumping Law, noting petitioner declared the price at $1.20 per crate instead of the actual $3.20, and ordered payment of the difference.
- The Finance Secretary reserved any further action under customs laws or other regulations enforced by the Bureau of Customs.
- Proceedings in the Court of Tax Appeals
- Petitioner sought review for annulment of seizure and refund of ₱1,175.28 paid under section 1388, arguing (a) the Import Control Law had expired, (b) Central Bank Circulars and EO 328 were void, (c) no prohibition under the Barter Trade Agreement, and (d) EO 328 unlawfully delegated legislative power.
- The Commissioner of Customs countered that (a) the Circulars and EO were valid and enforceable, (b) petitioner evaded no-dollar remittance and internal revenue tax, and (c) the onions were undervalued, violating section 1363(m)3-5.
Issues:
- Validity of regulatory instruments
- Do Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 have the force of law?
- Does Executive Order No. 328 unlawfully delegate legislative power to regulate imports?
- Grounds for forfeiture
- Did petitioner’s declaration of $1.20 per crate violate section 1363(m)3-5, rendering the onions subject to forfeiture?
- Does evasion of internal revenue tax collected by customs officers fall within the definition of “customs law”?
- Effect of the Anti-Dumping Law
- Does the penal and self-contained nature of the Anti-Dumping Law preclude applying section 1363(m) of the Revised Administrative Code?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)