Republic of the Philippines - Court of Tax Appeals 2 Quezon” City 7 Leon Zelman vs. Rolando G. Geotina

REPUBi,IC OF ,THE PHILIPPlNEB ·

CoURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON" CITY

Lr;: Oli ZB Ll-IAN ,

p t•t •

.~ e l loner,

versus

C. T .b. . Gtt.SE

~·JC . 2394

EOL:-~.I·.JDO G. GEOTIIJP. , in

His Official Capacity as

Acting Con~issioner of Customs ,

Respondent .

X -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

X

DECISIC I·T

This is an appeal from a decision of the Comnlis-

sioner of Customs .decl~ring forfeited the ~ . S . dollars and

u•

negctiable instruments , with exception of ~ 1, 000 in cash

and

:~ 1 , 400 in traveller ' s checl\S which \1/ere declared by

Leon Zelman in his currency declaration ,. for violation

of Se ction 3 of Central Bank Circular 265 and Section

1(a) and (c) of Central Bank Circular to . 266 in relation

to Se ction 2530(f) of the Tariff and Customs Code .

It appears that in the afternoon of March 19 , 1969

petitioner Leon .r"elman, a temporary visitor of the Philip-

pines 1-Jhc was about to board an outgoing Japan Airlines

plane en.route to the '~nited States of America at the

.Ianila International Airport , via Japan , vJas found upon

inspection to be in possession of United States dollars

in cash , traveller ' s and bank checks , amounting to

~20C' , 170 . 54, far exceeding the total amormt of ;:;2,400

declared by him i n his Central Bank Currency Form broken

..

D~CISIOH -

CTli. CASH; NO . 239lt

2

d61.-vn j_nto ·P1 , 000 in . cash and .)1 , 400 in traveller 1 s checks .

The aforesaid foreign exchange were seized by the Col-

lector of Customs for violation of Section 1 (a) and (b)

of Central Bank Circular No . 266 , and seiiure proceeding ~here·

'~:las instituted .

In a decision dated l4ugust 19 , 1)69 , the Collector

of Customs of the Hanila International Airport decreed

the forfeiture in favor of the Republic of the Philip-

pines of the aforesaid foreign exchange with the excep-

tion of .:· 1 , 000 in cash anc1

~>1 , ltOO in traveler 1 s chech:s .

This decision was appealed by petitioner to the Commis-

sioner of Customs vJho affirmed the Collector 1 s decision .

Thereafter petitioner filed this appeal .

aereunder we quote for ready reference the law in-

volved in this easel

Central 3ank Circular No . 265

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

( 3 ) No person shall take out or export

from the Philippines foreign currency or any

other foreign exchange except as otherwise

authorized by the Central Bank .

X

X

X

X

X

X

(6) Strict observance of the provisions

of this Circular is enjoined; and any resident

person , firm or corporatioh,

~tJho , being bound

to the observance thereof , or of such other

rules, regulations or directives as may here-

after be issued in implementation of this

Circular , shall fail or refuse to comply with ,

or abide by , or shall violate the same , shall

be subject to the penal sanctions provided

for under Section 34 of the ·Central Danl;:

· .. ct •

DECISION,-

' I

I

CTli Cl\.SE NO . 2394

3

Centra 1 Bank C 1srcu l~ r No .

2.(~

In implementation of the provisions of

Central Bank Circular No . 265 dated November

20, 1968 , the following rules and regula-

tions are hereby promulgated:

SECTION 1.

(a) Bvery Ph;i.lj...ll:Q,j.ne

res;i.dent departing from or returning to

the Philippines from abroad and every

temporary visitor entering the Phil:l:Q-

nines , including members of the crew or

complement of vessels and airplanes en-

gaged in international transportation,

shall accom·olish a Currencv Declaration

Qn CB Form No , 303 and shall declare o~

this form all Phili,rr.Jine currency anQ.

foreign exchange carried by the Declar-

ant .

·

X

X

X

X

X

(c) Temporary visi tors (i . e ., all

p .rsons

ho ar

not resid nts of th.f;.

Philipbines entering the Philippines ,

including members of the crew or com-

plement of vessels and airplanes engaged

in i nternational transportation , ~11

exhibit their accomplished Currency

Declaration to the Central Bank repre-

sentatives at the pier or airport ~f

entry vJho shall stamp the Currency . ·

Declaration and retain the stub .

The visitor shall keep his Currency

Declaration during his stay in the coun-

try .

ne may carry with him all the

foreign exchange declared by him in his

Currency Declaration , but to meet his

local currency needs during his stay ~ri

the Philip?ines , he shall sell foreign

exchange for Philip~ine pesos only to

authorized agents of the Central Bank.

11e shall not tgl'e out of the Philip;oi..ue..~

foreign exchange ±n excess of the amoqnt

brought in by him .

\t the time of his

deuarture fyom the country , the temporary

v;i.si tor or member of the cre11 or com- .

plAment of a vessel or airplane enr?aP:eQ

in inte.rnat,~onal transpo,tation shall

surrender h;i.s Currency Declaration to the

Central Bgnk representatives at the

Qier OJ airport of deDartur~ . (Under-

s coring suuplied .)

•

•' '

DECISimJ -

CTA CASE NO . 2394

4

C~ntral Bank Ct.r.cn.lar No . 220·

Pursuant to :1esolution I-;o . 591.1- dated pril

14, 1969 of the Monetary Board , Circular ro .

.

266 dated November 26 , 1968 is hereby revoked

effective i mmediately .

:Iencefor th ·declaration of currency of

any kind shall be required even from outg_oing

or incoxning passengers .

Tgriff 2: Cl.,l..§tOIU.§ Cod~

C:>:CC . 2530.

J'_p~r ty Subj.a.Qt to :B'.Q!.-

ffd ture Under 'l'ari ff ~and Customs I..st...W..§. · -

lny vessel or·aircraft , carbo , articles and

other objects shall , under the follovJing

conditions , be subject to forfeiture;

X

X

X

X

(f

:..ny article of nrohibi ted imuorta-

tion or exportation , the- impor tation or

exportation of which is effected or attempted

contrary to 1 1v, and atl other articles vlhich ,

in the O:'}inion of the

ollector , have been

used , are or were intended to be used as in-

strument in the importation or exportation of

the former .

It is not controverted that ryetitioner violated

.

Section 1 (a) and (c) of Central Bo.nk Circular No . 266

· requiring residents and temporary visitors entering the

Fhilipvines to accomplish a C1.1rrency Declaration on CB

Form 1~0 . 303 of foreign exchange carried by the declarant

and :prohibiting temporary visitors fror:1 taking out of

the Phi-1-ip~)ines foreign exchange j__c PXcess of tLe amount

brought in by him .

fetitioner hovJever contends that

since Circulnr rJo . 266 '.vas repealed by Centra.l Eank

Circular ·'iio . 270 ·on Apri.l 14, 1969 , the repeal abated the

forfeiture proceeding .

This nretension is untenable .

,

•

J.JECI.SI OrJ -

CT.tl. CAST' NO . 23 9~-

5

The repeal of Circular No . 266 ab~ted only the penal

responsibility of t~e petitioner , not the action for

forfe i tvre vJhich is civil in nature.

( Capulong v •

• ct i_ng Commissioner of Customs , 1 '7 SCl:U\ 61; l1anuel Bas-

tida v. Acting Com~issioner of Customs and t he Court of

Tax i~ppeals , 35 SCR& 4lt-8 . )

Said the Supreme Court in the

Bastida case , supra:

3 .

Finall.:l:, the petitioner argues that

in view of the repeal of Circulars 20 and

42 by Circular 133, the possession and · ex-

por tation of dollars , v.Ji thou t prior license

from the Central Banl"", is no longer prohibited .

-~·fnile this may be true in the context of

present- day foreign exchange transactions,

we nevertheless must recognize the dual

character of proceedings that co~ld be in-

stituted for violation of Central Bank cir-

culars 20 and 42, during the time that these

1t1ere in force, under the authority of Republic

ct 265 (Central Bank Act .)

The petitioner loses sigh~ of t he fact

that his attempt to export the checks , ·money

orders and dollar bills in question, in

violation of the aforementioned provisions

of t he ~evised lldministrative Code and Cen-

tral Bank circulars, entailed two penalties :

(a , a penalty for violation of Circular 42,

prescribed by Section 8 of Circular 20 in

relation to Section 34 of Renublic Act 265,

directed principally against the person of

tne offender and which may be imposed in a

cr1rninal :orosecution (an action in personam) ,

and (b) a penalty of forfeiture imposed by

.

Section 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative ·

Code directed primarily against the merchandise

rather than the offender (an action in rgm) .

.

In the case at bar , the repeal of Cir ·_

culars 20 and 42 by Circular 133 did not have

the effect of abating the forfejture case in-

stituted against the petitioner , for the sim-

ple reason that the forfeiture proceedings

undertal:en here are civil - not criminal --

in nature .

In this sense, therefore , the

rane.aJ cAnnot h~ gjvaD retr·nact"i\ra effect

1~7