Title
Sy vs. Central Bank of the Philippines
Case
G.R. No. L-41480
Decision Date
Apr 30, 1976
Gonzalo Sy Trading's Special Import Permit, valid for the 1968 Christmas season, expired by 1970; seized goods violated Central Bank Circular No. 289, upheld by Supreme Court.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-32370)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Application for Special Import Permit
    • Petitioner Gonzalo Sy Trading, an importer of fresh fruits for 19 years, sought authority on September 28, 1968 to import fresh fruits from Japan on a “no-dollar” basis in the amount of US$715,000.
    • Initial request denied on October 2, 1968; petitioner reiterated need for Christmas season in letters of October 22 and November 6, 1968.
  • Granting of Permit and Deposit Requirement
    • Monetary Board Resolution No. 2038 (November 19, 1968) authorized importation of fresh fruits from Japan valued at US$350,000, on no-dollar basis, subject to 100% special time deposit for 120 days and normal duties.
    • Petitioner’s November 27, 1968 request to reduce deposit to 20% was denied December 9, 1968.
  • Subsequent Importations and Permit Balance
    • First importation under the permit occurred February 25, 1969; bulk shipments followed through November 1969 from various countries; further imports in January and March 1970.
    • By June 1970, petitioner had utilized US$314,142.51 of the US$350,000 permit, leaving US$35,857.49.
  • Attempted Extension and Seizure of Goods
    • Petitioner’s October 30, 1969 request to amend country of origin denied November 19, 1969—permit “intended only for the Christmas season of 1968.”
    • Antiporda’s November 21, 1969 letter to agent bank allowed continued issuance of release certificates “subject to the same terms and conditions.”
    • April 17, 1970 CB letter reiterated that permit did not extend beyond Christmas 1968. Petitioner’s June 1970 shipments seized under CB Circulars and Tariff Code §2530(f).
    • Court of First Instance issued injunction for release on bond; September 1970 shipments likewise seized and petitioner filed mandamus case (Civil Case No. 81051), which was later dismissed.

Issues:

  • Whether the Special Import Permit remained valid for importations made in June and September 1970.
  • Whether petitioner can rely on promissory estoppel, based on Antiporda’s letter, to extend the permit’s validity.
  • Whether Customs lawfully seized the June and September 1970 shipments and properly enforced the bonds posted for release.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.