Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

Commissioner of Customs vs.

Eastern Sea Trading

G.R. No. L-14279

October 31, 1961

Petitioner: The commissioner of customs and the collector of customs
Respondent: Eastern Sea Trading
FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ponente: Concepcion, J.
Facts:
-

-

Eastern Sea Trading  consignee of shipments of onion and garlic from Japan and Hong Kong
None of the shipments had the Certificate required by Central Bank Circulars Nos. 44 and 45;
goods then seized and subjected to forfeiture proceedings by the Govnt for the alleged violations
of section 1363 (f) of the Revised Admin Code. Consequently, the Collector of Customs of
Manila declared these as forfeited to the govnt. Said decision affirmed by the Commissioner of
Customs.
Court of Tax Appeals reversed the decision!
o Central Bank has no authority to regulate transactions NOT involving foreign exchange
(pang-foreign exchange lang daw si CB)
o Shipments in question are in the nature of no-dollar imports (anent the first one); hence,
they do not involve foreign exchange, and that conclusively, Central Bank need not
meddle with these kinds of transactions (kase hindi nga siya something involving foreign
exchange.)
o Seizure of the goods cannot be justified under E.O. 328
 E.O. 328  Executive order that sought to implement the Executive Agreement
the Philippines had with occupied Japan (extending the effectivity of our Trade
and Financial Agreements.)
 Said E.O. is assailed by petitioner because of its dubious validity (because did
not went through senate), and that there was no governmental agency authorized
to issue said required license in the E.O.

Issues/Held:
WoN the CB had no authority to regulate such transactions ---------- NO
-

Authority of CB to handle those things  already decided by Court plenty of times already (aka
nothing new daw.)
CB’s broad powers under its charter (to maintain our monetary stability and to preserve the
international value of our currency) authorize it to issue rules and regulations as it may consider
necessary for the effective discharge of duty.

WoN the said Executive Agreement, as enforced by E.O. 328, is invalid for not passing through Senate
-------- NO
-

Executive Agreements become binding through executive action WITHOUT the need to vote by
the Senate or Congress.

carry out adjustments of detail and cover arrangements of a temporary nature. said license is now SOLELY under the responsibility of CB. usually are agreements that.O. E. Decision Reversed! . be an exchange of notes between two reps. HENCE. 328 originally provided for the two ‘agencies’ – CB and Import Control Commission – to issue the said required license o However. for example. it can involve all the formalities needed like actual (formal) documents and such. Executive Agreements  Of a large variety! Also. Import Control Commission was later abolished by govnt. unlike the political issues of permanent form that are tackled in treaties. or sometimes. Takes on many different ‘forms’ – it can.- - Has long been an international practice.