Primary Holding

Importations violating Central Bank circulars are “prohibited importations” under Section 102(k) of the Tariff and Customs Code and cannot be released under bond pursuant to Section 2301.

Background

Eusebio Dichoco’s shipment of 438 packages of foodstuffs was seized by customs for lacking a Central Bank release certificate. The CTA initially allowed release under bond, reversed itself, then reinstated the bond order. The Commissioner of Customs challenged this via certiorari.

Facts

• 1. Dichoco imported foodstuffs under a “no-dollar” declaration but failed to secure a Central Bank release certificate required by Circulars 247, 289, 294, and 295. The Bureau of Customs seized the goods, and Dichoco paid duties but sought bond release.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The foodstuffs were prohibited importations under Section 102(k) due to violation of Central Bank circulars.
• 2. Prohibited articles cannot be released under bond per Section 2301.
• 3. The CTA acted without jurisdiction in ordering release.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Foodstuffs were not “absolutely prohibited” but merely required conditions (e.g., release certificates), so bond applies.
• 2. Section 102(k) should be limited to contraband under ejusdem generis.
• 3. Customs Administrative Order No. 19-70 contravened the Tariff Code.

Issues

• 1. Whether the importation qualified as a “prohibited importation” under Section 102(k).
• 2. Whether the CTA gravely abused its discretion in ordering release under bond.

Ruling

• 1. Prohibited Importation: The Court rejected ejusdem generis, holding Section 102(k) covers all articles prohibited by law, including those barred by Central Bank circulars. Violations of such circulars render imports prohibited.
• 2. Bond Release: Section 2301 explicitly bars bond release for prohibited imports. Customs Administrative Order No. 19-70 validly reinforced this.
• 3. Jurisdiction: The CTA exceeded its jurisdiction by ignoring settled precedents (e.g., Geotina v. CTA) and statutory prohibitions.

Doctrines

• 1. Ejusdem generis does not apply if enumerated items lack common characteristics.
• 2. Central Bank circulars have the force of law under customs regulations.
• 3. Prohibited imports include both absolutely and conditionally barred items.

Key Excerpts

• 1. “The Government expects no revenue from such banned articles, since they are not allowed to be imported.”
• 2. “Even if the purpose of importing the foodstuffs be legitimate, that purpose does not cleanse the importation of its illegality.”

Precedents Cited

• 1. Geotina v. CTA (1971): Upheld prohibition on bond release for imports violating Central Bank circulars.
• 2. Chan Kian v. Collector (1966): Violations of circulars equate to prohibited importations.
• 3. Pascual v. Commissioner (1959): Emphasized protection of foreign reserves.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Tariff and Customs Code: Sections 102(k) (prohibited importations), 2301 (bond prohibition), 2530(f) (forfeiture).
• 2. Central Bank Circulars: Nos. 247, 289, 294, 295 (release certificate requirements).
• 3. Republic Act No. 1410: Prohibits no-dollar imports without redemption or bond.