ANDRES E. LAZARO, Petitioner, v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent.
De Leon & De Leon and N.V. Benedicto for Petitioner.
Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz and Solicitor A. B. Afurong for Respondent.
BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:
TOPIC:
Art. 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.
FACTS:
1. On 24 August 1954, three packages of (3) packages of tooth-picks, one (1) package of pomade, and one (1) package of dried fish fins arrived in Manila consigned to Andres E. Lazaro. This was not covered by any import license or release certificate from the Central Bank of the Philippines as required by its Circulars Nos. 44 and 45 it was forfeited by the Commissioner of Customs not only under the authority of said circulars but also in relation to Section 1363 (f) of the Revised Administrative Code.
2. The shipment was still released and delivered to petitioner Lazaro under Surety Bond No. 024 in the amount of P3,702.00.
3. On April 21, 1955, the Collector of Customs rendered judgment in said seizure proceedings declaring the bond forfeited and ordering petitioner, as well as the surety corporation, to pay jointly and severally said amount of P3,702.00 to the Bureau of Customs within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the decision in accordance with the terms contained in the surety bond. This judgment was affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs on November 3, 1959 in violation of Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45.
4. Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Tax Appeals, and after proper
hearing, said court rendered decision affirming the judgment of the Commissioner of
Customs, with costs against petitioner. Petitioner brought this case for review before this
Court.
ISSUE:
W/N the implied repeal of Circular No. 45 by Republic Act No. 1410 has the effect of diminishing the forfeiture case instituted against petitioner for and be given a retroactive effect.
RULING:
NO. The alleged implied repeal of Circular No. 45 by Republic Act No. 1410 is without merit for there is nothing in Section 6 of Republic Act No. 1410 which could be construed as having repealed Circular No. 45 which, although does not expressly prohibit the items shipped, the items were still not included in the allowed items and the petitioner was not able to present license. But even if assuming said Act had the effect of impliedly repealing the aforesaid Circular, such repeal still cannot diminish the forfeiture case against petitioner simply because Republic Act No. 1410 cannot be given a retroactive effect so as to defeat any act or transaction effected or undertaken during the life of Circular No. 45. Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45, being regulations issued pursuant to law and enforceable by the Bureau of Customs, form part of said customs law. Article 4 of the new Civil Code specifically provides: Laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided. Here there is no such contrary provision. Said goods had already been imported and declared forfeited by the Collector of Customs of Manila when Republic Act 1410 was enacted on September 10, 1955. Thus, the forfeiture case is not in any way diminished for the non-retroactivity effect.
The decision appealed from the Court of Tax Appeals is affirmed.
Comments
Post a Comment