Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1960 > November 1960 Decisions > G.R. No. L-10508 November 29, 1960 - PO ENG TRADING v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

110 Phil 83:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-10508. November 29, 1960.]

PO ENG TRADING, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent.

J.T. David and C.M. Soriano for Petitioner.

Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor J.R. Coquia for Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. CUSTOMS LAW; PROHIBITED IMPORTATION; SEIZURE AND FORFEITURE. — It is not being denied that Commodity Code NO. 8510112 specifically mentions and authorizes the importation of "Boots, Rubber for miners only", it is clear that the boots for "women" and "children" in question are beyond the scope of said commodity Code. Consequently, their importation is prohibited and they are subject to forfeiture in accordance with Circular No. 44 of the Central Bank, in relation to Sections 1363 (f) and 1419 of the Revised Administrative Code.

2. ID.; ID.; JURISDICTION AND POWER OF COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS TO SUBJECT TO FORFEITURE MERCHANDISE OF PROHIBITED IMPORTATION. — In accordance with Section 1250 of the Revised Administrative Code, the Collector of Customs has jurisdiction, indeed, has the duty to exercise jurisdiction, to prevent importation or otherwise secure compliance with all legal requirements in the case of merchandise of prohibited importation or subject to importation only upon conditions prescribed by law. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, he may subject to forfeiture cargoes and other objects of prohibited importation, in accordance with Section 1363 (f), Revised Administrative Code.

3. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION; PRINCIPLE OF INCLUSIO UNIOS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS APPLIED. — Inasmuch as the boots for "women" and "children" in question are not included in Commodity Code No. 8510112 which enumerates merchandise authorized to be imported, the same are clearly not subject to importation upon the principle of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.

4. CENTRAL BANK CIRCULAR NO. 44; FORCE AND EFFECT THEREOF. — It is now a settled rule that Central Bank Circular No. 44 - approved on June 18, 1953, and published in the Official Gazette on June 19, 1953 (49 Off. Gaz. No. 6, p. 2192) — has the force and effect of law (People v. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil., 640; 50 Off. Gaz., 4850).


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


On May 25, 1954, appellant Po Eng Trading opened a Letter of Credit No. 20497 in connection with the importation of 42 cases of rubber boots from Hongkong. On July 14 of the same year 42 cases consigned to appellant arrived at the Port of Manila on Board the SS Schwabenstein, shipped by Yick Yau, of Hongkong. The shipment was declared in Entry No. 58929 (Exhibit E and 5) as 42 cases of "Rubber Boots for Miners" and was covered by a Bill of Lading (Exhibits B and 2), a Commercial Invoice (Exhibits D-3 and 4-C), a Joint Certificate of Origin (Exhibits D-1 and 4-A), Consular Invoice No. 1326 (Exhibits D and 4) and Central Bank Release Certificate No. RC-8367 (Exhibits C and 3). All these documents describe the shipment as 42 cases of "Rubber Boots for Miners" and the Central Bank Release Certificates classify the goods as "NEP", Code No. 850112.

As upon examination made on July 23, 1954, by Customs examiner Magno Joves 13 of the cases were found to contain rubber boors for ladies and children, they were ordered seized because their attempted importation was in violation of Central Bank Circular No. 44, in relation to Section 1363 (f) of the Revised Administrative Code.

Appellant paid the estimated duties and sales tax on the whole shipment (Exhibits A and A-1) and also filed a Surety Bond No. 54/4417, dated August 20, 1954 and issued by the Paramount Surety & Insurance Company, Inc., to secure the release of the 13 cases. In the corresponding seizure proceedings had in the Manila Custom House the Commissioner of Customs, on January 24, 1955, rendered decision ordering the forfeiture of the 13 cases and releasing the others, upon the ground that rubber boots for ladies and children did not fall under the Commodity Code No. 850112, mentioned in the Central Bank Release Certificate, which authorized the importation of rubber boots "for miners only." Upon denial of appellant’s motion for reconsideration, it filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals, but the latter, on December 10, 1955, affirmed the decision of the Commissioner of Customs.

The question raised in this appeal are the following: (1) whether or not the boots in question — which appellant admits do not fall within the meaning of Commodity Code No. 850112 which refers to rubber boots for miner only are of "prohibited importation", and (2) whether said boots may be forfeited under Circular No. 44 of the Central Bank, in relation to Sections 1363 (f) and 1419 of the Revised Administrative Code.

Anent the first question, it is not denied that Commodity Code No. 850112 specifically mentions and authorizes the importation of "Boots, Rubber (for miners only)." The boots for women and children in question — which appellant’s brief itself calls "ordinarily boots for ladies and children" (p. 3) — are undoubtedly beyond the scope of this Commodity Code, not being boots for miners at all. If the Central Bank had in mind authorizing the importation of all kinds of rubber boots, its Circular No. 44 would not have limited importation exclusively to rubber boots "for miners." Appellant contends that the boots in question are not included in any of the Code Numbers enumerated in the Statistical Classification of Commodities issued by the Central Bank to implement its Circular No. 44. It is believed, however, that they fall under UI, meaning "Unclassified List Category (Appellants brief P. 7) the importation of which is completely banned — as admittedly by appellant. But even assuming that appellant’s contention in this regard is correct, it does not justify the conclusion it draws, namely, that the importation of the boors for women and children in question "is not limited, restricted, regulated, or controlled much less banned or prohibited by the Central Bank." As admitted by appellant, the Central Bank has the power to control foreign exchange and allocate the same to finance importation of goods. It is obvious that it was in the exercise of such power that the Central Bank issued its Circular No. 44 and the implementing Statistical Classification of Commodities mentioned heretofore classifying and listing various articles for importation purpose. Equally obvious therefore is that goods not included in such classification are not subject to importation upon the principle of Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.

Central Bank Circular No. 44, implementing Republic Act 265, has the effect of a Customs law as defined in the last paragraph of Section 1419, Revised Administrative Code. In accordance with Section 1250, of the Revised Administrative Code, the Collector of Customs has jurisdiction, indeed, has the duty to exercise jurisdiction to prevent importation or otherwise secure compliance with all legal requirements in the case of merchandise of prohibited importation or subject to importation only upon conditions prescribed by law. In the exercise of this jurisdiction, he may subject to forfeiture cargoes and other objects of prohibited importation, in accordance with Section 1363(f), Revised Administrative Code.

Central Bank Circular No. 44 — approved on June 18, 1953, and published in the Official Gazette in June 19, 1953 (49 Off. Gaz. No. 6, p. 2192) — has the force and effect of law (People v. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil., 640; 50 Off. Gaz. 4850). It clearly provides that no merchandise shall be released by the Bureau of Customs without the presentation of a Central Bank release certificate. As the certificate issued in this case calls only for rubber boots "For miners", and — as stated heretofore — boots for women and children do not fall within the meaning of Commodity Code No. 850112 which authorizes the importation of rubber boots "for miners only", the inevitable conclusion is that their importation is prohibited and are clearly subject to forfeiture in accordance with Section 1363 of the Revised Administrative Code.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs.

Paras, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Gutierrez David and Paredes, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


ClubJuris.Com



November-1960 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-11001 November 23, 1960 - FORTUNATO V. BORROMEO v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

    110 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-12125 November 23, 1960 - LUIS G. ABLAZA v. AMANCIO SYCIP

    110 Phil 4

  • G.R. No. L-13251 November 23, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ALTO SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC.

    110 Phil 9

  • G.R. No. L-14223 November 23, 1960 - SABINA SANTIAGO v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC.

    110 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-14569 November 23, 1960 - BENITO CODILLA v. JOSE L. MARTINEZ

    110 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-14641 November 23, 1960 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. EUSTAQUIO DE LUNA

    110 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-14764 November 23, 1960 - CENON VILLANUEVA v. BARBER WILHELMSEN LINE

    110 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-14864 November 23, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO SOLON

    110 Phil 39

  • G.R. No. L-14897 November 23, 1960 - JESUS NEPOMUCENO v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

    110 Phil 42

  • G.R. No. L-15904 November 23, 1960 - ELIZALDE PAINT & OIL FACTORY, INC. v. JOSE S. BAUTISTA

    110 Phil 49

  • G.R. No. L-16022 November 23, 1960 - NATALIA B. NICOMEDES v. CHIEF OF CONSTABULARY

    110 Phil 52

  • G.R. No. L-13114 November 25, 1960 - ELENITA LEDESMA SILVA v. ESTHER PERALTA

    110 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. L-15276 November 28, 1960 - EPIFANIO J. ALANO v. CLARO CORTES

    110 Phil 74

  • G.R. No. L-7330 November 29, 1960 - JOSE BENARES v. CAPITOL SUBDIVISION, INC.

    110 Phil 79

  • G.R. No. L-10508 November 29, 1960 - PO ENG TRADING v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. L-10810 November 29, 1960 - JOSEFINA RUIZ DE LUZURIAGA BLANCO v. COMPANIA GRAL. DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS

    110 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-10836 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: PROCOPY MOSCAL v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    110 Phil 99

  • G.R. No. L-11325 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BOTO BALONTO

    110 Phil 102

  • G.R. No. L-11482 November 29, 1960 - ESTEBAN T. BUMANGLAG v. JOSE FERNANDEZ

    110 Phil 107

  • G.R. No. L-11837 November 29, 1960 - MAGDALENA G. VDA. DE CUAYCONG v. CRISTETA L. VDA. DE SENGBENGCO

    110 Phil 113

  • G.R. No. L-12275 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOTIMO RUBINIAL

    110 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-12508 November 29, 1960 - JOSE L. LAGRIMAS v. ROBERTO ZURBANO

    110 Phil 127

  • G.R. Nos. L-13107-08 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIO DELMAS

    110 Phil 132

  • G.R. No. L-13173 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO SORIO

    110 Phil 138

  • G.R. No. L-14217 November 29, 1960 - LUZ H. COLOMA v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    110 Phil 145

  • G.R. No. L-14274 November 29, 1960 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. SERREE INVESTMENT COMPANY

    110 Phil 148

  • G.R. No. L-14283 November 29, 1960 - GIL BALBUNA v. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION

    110 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-14382 November 29, 1960 - REMEDIOS CUENCO VDA. DE BORROMEO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. L-14559 November 29, 1960 - REYNALDO MADRIÑAN v. VICENTE G. SINCO

    110 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. L-14567 November 29, 1960 - ELENA PERALTA VDA. DE CAINA v. COURT OF APPEALS

    110 Phil 164

  • G.R. No. L-14594 November 29, 1960 - SEVERINO CAÑGAS v. TAN CHUAN LEONG

    110 Phil 168

  • G.R. No. L-14611 November 29, 1960 - EVANGELINO LASERNA v. MARIA JAVIER

    110 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. L-14656 November 29, 1960 - PHILIPPINE LAND-AIR-SEA LABOR UNION (PLASLU) v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    110 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. L-14682 November 29, 1960 - FRANCISCO EVARISTO v. OLEGARIO LASTRILLA

    110 Phil 181

  • G.R. No. L-14690 November 29, 1960 - JESUS S. DIZON v. JOSE T. GARCIA, SR.

    110 Phil 186

  • G.R. No. L-14769 November 29, 1960 - LAURO P. LEVISTE v. EUSEBIO F. RAMOS

    110 Phil 190

  • G.R. No. L-14780 November 29, 1960 - POMPEYO L. PALARCA v. RESTITUTA BAROL DE ANZON

    110 Phil 194

  • G.R. Nos. L-14785 & L-14923 November 29, 1960 - FELIX ABE v. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION

    110 Phil 198

  • G.R. No. L-14983 November 29, 1960 - AGRIPINA VDA. DE ALBURO v. FILOMENA VDA. DE UMBAO

    110 Phil 210

  • G.R. No. L-15231 November 29, 1960 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO PERVEZ

    110 Phil 214

  • G.R. No. L-15271 November 29, 1960 - ONG YET MUA HARDWARE CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

    110 Phil 219

  • G.R. No. L-15312 November 29, 1960 - IN RE: JUAN TACDORO v. JESUS ARCENAS

    110 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-15439 November 29, 1960 - ISAAC PERAL BOWLING ALLEY v. UNITED EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSN.

    110 Phil 227

  • G.R. No. L-15551 November 29, 1960 - DAVID CONSUNJI v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 231

  • G.R. No. L-15593 November 29, 1960 - MARIA BALDO v. PEDRO GUERRERO

    110 Phil 235

  • G.R. Nos. L-15618, L-16000 & L-16116 November 29, 1960 - ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE

    110 Phil 240

  • G.R. No. L-15671 November 29, 1960 - AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD. v. RICHARD A. KLEPPER

    110 Phil 243

  • G.R. No. L-15804 November 29, 1960 - SANCHO B. DE LEON v. ESTANISLAO FAUSTINO

    110 Phil 249

  • G.R. No. L-15925 November 29, 1960 - ESTELA FRANCISCO DE LASALA v. PEDRO SARNATE

    110 Phil 255

  • G.R. No. L-16028 November 29, 1960 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DALMACIO URTULA

    110 Phil 262

  • G.R. No. L-16030 November 29, 1960 - SEGUNDA INOCANDO v. JUAN INOCANDO

    110 Phil 266

  • G.R. No. L-16068 November 29, 1960 - CONSUELO S. CALALANG v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF GERVACIO TANJANGCO

    110 Phil 270

  • G.R. No. L-16093 November 29, 1960 - LOCAL 7, PRESS & PRINTING FREE WORKERS v. EMILIANO TABIGNE

    110 Phil 276

  • G.R. No. L-16406 November 29, 1960 - PRIMO QUETULIO v. DELFIN B. FLORES

    110 Phil 284

  • G.R. Nos. L-16409 & L-16416 November 29, 1960 - ALEJANDRO L. GUMPAL v. MANUEL ARRANZ

    110 Phil 287

  • G.R. No. L-16523 November 29, 1960 - LUIS G. PERALTA v. FELIXBERTO SERRANO

    110 Phil 301