G.R. No. L-22781 - Capulong vs. Acting Commissioner of Customs

Petitioner Bienvenido Capulong imported 63 packages of assorted merchandise from Hong Kong into the Philippines without securing an import license and release certificate from the Central Bank.
The Collector of Customs seized the merchandise for alleged violations of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, as well as Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code.
During the seizure proceedings, Capulong posted a bond for the release of the goods and subsequently appealed the decision to the Court of Tax Appeals.
While the appeal was pending, Central Bank Circular No. 133 was issued, which became a focal point in the legal arguments.

The primary legal questions were whether the forfeiture of the goods was appropriate despite them not being classified as "prohibited importation" and whether CB Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 were repealed by CB Circular No. 133.
The Court of Tax Appeals affirmed the Commissioner’s decision, leading to the current petition for review.

The Court ruled that while the imported goods were not classified as "prohibited importation," they could still be considered as imported "contrary to law," thus subject to forfeiture.
The forfeiture was justified under Section 1363(f) of the Administrative Code, which allows for the forfeiture of merchandise imported in violation of customs regulations.
The Court emphasized that regulations issued under customs laws are integral to the legal framework governing importation, and violations of these regulations fall within the purview of Section 1363(f).

The Court clarified that CB Circular No. 133 did not repeal CB Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 but rather re-enacted them by incorporating existing regulations that were not inconsistent with its provisions.
The purpose of all three circulars is to mandate the presentation of a release certificate from the Central Bank prior to any importation, aimed at monitoring the volume of imports to address the financial crisis in the country.
The Court found that the provisions of CB Circular No. 133 were not in conflict with those of Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, thus maintaining their validity.

The petition for review was denied, and the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals was affirmed, upholding the forfeiture of the imported goods.
The ruling reinforced the principle that violations of customs regulations can lead to forfeiture, e...continue reading