EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-14274. November 29, 1960. ]
THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Petitioner, v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY, Respondent.
Acting Assistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro and Solicitor Felicisimo R. Rosete for Petitioner.
San Juan, Africa & Benedicto for Respondent.
SYLLABUS
IMPORT AND EXPORT; CENTRAL BANK CIRCULAR NOS. 44 AND 45 VALID; PROPRIETY OF SEIZURE OF MERCHANDISE FOR VIOLATION OF SAID CIRCULARS. — Central Bank Circular Nos. 44 and 45, insofar as they seek to regulate importations involving no-dollar remittances, are valid. Since articles imported from abroad involving no-dollar remittances would ultimately involve a future demand for foreign exchange, they may be legally forfeited under Section 1363 (f) of the Revised Administrative Code for violation of said circulars.
D E C I S I O N
LABRADOR, J.:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Tax Appeals dated July 16, 1958, reversing the decision of the Commission of Customs, the dispositive portion of which states —
"The instant case is a companion case of C.T.A. Case No. 227 involving the same parties which was decided by this Court on January 5, 1957. In that case, he merchandise involved were imported by petitioner from the same shipper in Hongkong under the same circumstances as in the instant case. Both importation arrived in Manila on the same boat on October 8, 1954. In C.T.A. case No. 227, we expressed the following opinion:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
‘We have already held that Central Bank Circular Nos. 44 and 45, in so far as they sought to regulate importations involving no-dollar remittance, are void. Accordingly, articles imported from abroad involving no-dollar remittance can not be legally forfeited under Section 1363 (f) of the Administrative Code for violation of said circulars.’
"We find no reason for deviating from the views expressed in said C.T.A. Case No. 227.
"The decision appealed from is reversed, and the surety bond filed by petitioner in this case is hereby cancelled. No costs."cralaw virtua1aw library
The facts, as stipulated by the parties, and as stated in the said decision are as follows —
"The merchandise is question arrived at the Port of Manila from Hongkong on October 8, 1954 on board the S/S PASADENA, and were declared in Entry No. 79817. Claiming that the importation was made on a no-dollar remittance basis, petitioner did not secure a release certificate from the Central Bank, or from any of its authorized agent banks, as required by Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45. Seizure proceedings were, therefore, instituted against said merchandise (Seizure identification No. 2049) for violation of said circulars in relation of Sections 1363 (f) and 1250 of the Administrative Code. Meanwhile, the importation in question was released upon the filing of a surety bond pending seizure proceedings."cralaw virtua1aw library
The instant case is the same as that of Commissioner of Customs v. Serree Investment Company, 108 Phil. 1; 58 Off. Gaz., (32) 5413. The same parties are involved and the same issues are raised on the appeal. As a matter of fact, the merchandise in the instant case arrived at the same time, on board the same ship and under the same circumstances as the merchandise in the other case (L-12007).
The instant case should, therefore, be decided in accordance with our decision in the previous case (L-12007) wherein we upheld the validity of Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 of the Central Bank and ruled that the importation would ultimately involve a future demand for foreign exchange.
Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby reversed and the decision of the Commissioner of Customs and the Collector of Customs affirmed. With costs against Respondent.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepción, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutiérrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
"The instant case is a companion case of C.T.A. Case No. 227 involving the same parties which was decided by this Court on January 5, 1957. In that case, he merchandise involved were imported by petitioner from the same shipper in Hongkong under the same circumstances as in the instant case. Both importation arrived in Manila on the same boat on October 8, 1954. In C.T.A. case No. 227, we expressed the following opinion:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
‘We have already held that Central Bank Circular Nos. 44 and 45, in so far as they sought to regulate importations involving no-dollar remittance, are void. Accordingly, articles imported from abroad involving no-dollar remittance can not be legally forfeited under Section 1363 (f) of the Administrative Code for violation of said circulars.’
"We find no reason for deviating from the views expressed in said C.T.A. Case No. 227.
"The decision appealed from is reversed, and the surety bond filed by petitioner in this case is hereby cancelled. No costs."cralaw virtua1aw library
The facts, as stipulated by the parties, and as stated in the said decision are as follows —
"The merchandise is question arrived at the Port of Manila from Hongkong on October 8, 1954 on board the S/S PASADENA, and were declared in Entry No. 79817. Claiming that the importation was made on a no-dollar remittance basis, petitioner did not secure a release certificate from the Central Bank, or from any of its authorized agent banks, as required by Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45. Seizure proceedings were, therefore, instituted against said merchandise (Seizure identification No. 2049) for violation of said circulars in relation of Sections 1363 (f) and 1250 of the Administrative Code. Meanwhile, the importation in question was released upon the filing of a surety bond pending seizure proceedings."cralaw virtua1aw library
The instant case is the same as that of Commissioner of Customs v. Serree Investment Company, 108 Phil. 1; 58 Off. Gaz., (32) 5413. The same parties are involved and the same issues are raised on the appeal. As a matter of fact, the merchandise in the instant case arrived at the same time, on board the same ship and under the same circumstances as the merchandise in the other case (L-12007).
The instant case should, therefore, be decided in accordance with our decision in the previous case (L-12007) wherein we upheld the validity of Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 of the Central Bank and ruled that the importation would ultimately involve a future demand for foreign exchange.
Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby reversed and the decision of the Commissioner of Customs and the Collector of Customs affirmed. With costs against Respondent.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepción, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Gutiérrez David, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.
