Facts:

The case involves Serree Investment Company as the petitioner and the Commissioner of Customs as the respondent, under G.R. Nos. L-20847-9, with a decision rendered on June 22, 1965. The petitioner, as the consignee, received three separate shipments at the Port of Manila from Hong Kong on different dates. The first shipment consisted of 85 packages of melon seeds that arrived on April 21, 1955; the second included 100 baskets of fresh lychees, arriving on May 14, 1955; and the third involved 17 cases of candles, which arrived on December 14, 1954. None of these shipments had the required Central Bank release certificates, as mandated by Central Bank Circular Nos. 44 and 45. Because of this non-compliance, the shipments were seized pursuant to Section 1363 (f) and Section 1250 of the Revised Administrative Code. To secure the release of the confiscated items, the petitioner filed separate surety bonds with Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation and Malayan Insurance Company, l

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petitioner: Serree Investment Company, acting as consignee of multiple shipments from Hongkong.
• Respondent: Commissioner of Customs, responsible for enforcing importation regulations and customs laws.

Description of the Shipments

• Three separate shipments arrived at the Port of Manila on different dates:
• 85 packages of melon seeds on board the steamer "Aeolus" (April 21, 1955).
• 100 baskets of fresh liches on board the steamer "Talabot" (May 14, 1955).
• 17 cases of candles on board the steamer "Thames" (December 14, 1954).
• None of the shipments were accompanied by the mandatory Central Bank release certificates as required by Central Bank Circular Nos. 44 and 45.

Grounds for Seizure and Bond Filings

• Petitioner’s failure to secure the required release certificates rendered the shipments subject to seizure under:
• Section 1363(f) and
• Section 1250 of the Revised Administrative Code.
• In order to secure the release of the shipments, petitioner filed three separate bonds:
• Bonds were subscribed by Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation and by the Malayan Insurance Company.
• Separate seizure proceedings were conducted by the Collector of Customs, in which petitioner and the surety bond providers were given the opportunity to be heard.

Proceedings and Decisions Prior to the Present Appeal

• The Collector of Customs, after due hearings, issued separate decisions:
• Ordering the forfeiture of the seized merchandise in favor of the government.
• Mandating the payment of the amounts secured by the bonds submitted by the petitioner.
• Upon separate appeals filed by petitioner:
• The Commissioner of Customs affirmed the decisions of the Collector of Customs while ordering the confiscation of the bonds filed by the surety companies, including Pioneer Insurance.
• The Court of Tax Appeals later affirmed the decisions of the Commissioner of Customs.

Petitioner’s Main Arguments

• As the consignee of shipments involving “no-dollar remittances,” petitioner contended:
• The shipments, imported without the requisite foreign exchange, should not be subject to the seizure proceedings.
• The applicability of the Central Bank Circulars (Nos. 44 and 45) is nullified by the enactment of Republic Act No. 1410, as these circulars purportedly govern only those importations that involve foreign exchange transactions.
• Petitioner further argued that the administrative proceedings, including the confiscation of the bonds, were null and void due to the alleged lack of legal authority for the Central Bank Circulars relating to no-dollar importations.

Respondent’s Position and Counterclaims

• The Commissioner of Customs maintained that:
• Shipments imported without the required Central Bank release certificates are properly subject to seizure under the existing circulars and the relevant provisions of the Revised Administrative Code.
• The power and authority of the Central Bank (and by extension, the Monetary Board) to issue Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 are well-settled by previous decisions of the Court.
• The alleged lack of legal authority for the circulars, as raised for the first time on appeal, is without merit.
• By way of counterclaim, respondent asserted that:
• The bond filed (Pioneer Insurance Surety and Corporation Bond No. 317 in the sum of P26,000.00) to secure the release of the seized melon seeds is liable not only for the principal amount but also for an additional fine, surcharge, and penalty as prescribed by law.

Issue:

Validity and Applicability of Central Bank Circulars

• Whether Central Bank Circular Nos. 44 and 45, which require the presentation of release certificates for importation, have legal authority, especially in cases involving no-dollar remittance transactions.
• Whether Republic Act No. 1410 effectively nullifies or limits the applicability of these circulars in regulating importations that ostensibly do not require the sale of foreign exchange.

Legality of the Seizure and Forfeiture

• Whether the shipments imported without the required release certificates fall within the definition of “merchandise of prohibited importation” under Section 1363(f) and Section 1250 of the Revised Administrative Code.
• Whether the actions of the Collector of Customs and subsequent decisions by the Commissioner of Customs in seizing and ordering the forfeiture of the merchandise (and confiscation of the surety bonds) were proper and legally valid.

Adequacy of the Procedures

• Whether the separate seizure proceedings and the opportunity given to petitioner and its bondmen complied with due process requirements.

Counterclaim on the Bond Liability

• Whether the bond filed by petitioner, specifically Bond No. 317, duly secures not only the release of the merchandise but also additional liabilities such as fines and penalties.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)