Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Treaties

    Uploaded by

    Conrad Pranze Villas
    1) EST, a shipping company, was charged with the importation of onions and garlic from Japan into the Philippines. The Commissioner of Customs ordered the seizure and forfeiture of the goods because EST failed to comply with Central Bank Circulars implementing EO 328, which sought to regulate imports of non-dollar goods from Japan. 2) EST questioned the validity of EO 328, arguing that it was not concurred by the Senate as required for treaties. 3) The Court ruled that executive agreements like the one in EO 328 do not require Senate concurrence like treaties. Executive agreements are common and cover various commercial and diplomatic matters.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Treaties

    Uploaded by

    Conrad Pranze Villas
    12 views2 pages
    1) EST, a shipping company, was charged with the importation of onions and garlic from Japan into the Philippines. The Commissioner of Customs ordered the seizure and forfeiture of the goods because EST failed to comply with Central Bank Circulars implementing EO 328, which sought to regulate imports of non-dollar goods from Japan. 2) EST questioned the validity of EO 328, arguing that it was not concurred by the Senate as required for treaties. 3) The Court ruled that executive agreements like the one in EO 328 do not require Senate concurrence like treaties. Executive agreements are common and cover various commercial and diplomatic matters.

    Original Description:

    case about treaties

    Original Title

    treaties

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) EST, a shipping company, was charged with the importation of onions and garlic from Japan into the Philippines. The Commissioner of Customs ordered the seizure and forfeiture of the goods because EST failed to comply with Central Bank Circulars implementing EO 328, which sought to regulate imports of non-dollar goods from Japan. 2) EST questioned the validity of EO 328, arguing that it was not concurred by the Senate as required for treaties. 3) The Court ruled that executive agreements like the one in EO 328 do not require Senate concurrence like treaties. Executive agreements are common and cover various commercial and diplomatic matters.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    12 views2 pages

    Treaties

    Uploaded by

    Conrad Pranze Villas
    1) EST, a shipping company, was charged with the importation of onions and garlic from Japan into the Philippines. The Commissioner of Customs ordered the seizure and forfeiture of the goods because EST failed to comply with Central Bank Circulars implementing EO 328, which sought to regulate imports of non-dollar goods from Japan. 2) EST questioned the validity of EO 328, arguing that it was not concurred by the Senate as required for treaties. 3) The Court ruled that executive agreements like the one in EO 328 do not require Senate concurrence like treaties. Executive agreements are common and cover various commercial and diplomatic matters.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Commissioner of Customs vs. Eastern Sea Trading (G.R.

    No. L-14279)
    Posted: July 25, 2011 in Case Digests

    0
    FACTS: EST was a shipping company charged in the importation from Japan of onion and garlic into the Philippines. In 1956,

    the Commissioner of Customs ordered the seizure and forfeiture of the import goods because EST was not able to comply with

    Central Bank Circulars 44 and 45. The said circulars were pursuant to EO 328 w/c sought to regulate the importation of such

    non-dollar goods from Japan (as there was a Trade and Financial Agreement b/n the Philippines and Japan then). EST questioned

    the validity of the said EO averring that the said EO was never concurred upon by the Senate. The issue was elevated to the Court

    of Tax Appeals and the latter ruled in favor of EST. The Commissioner appealed.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the EO is subject to the concurrence of at least 2/3 of the Senate.

    HELD: No, executive Agreements are not like treaties which are subject to the concurrence of at least 2/3 of the members of the

    Senate. Agreements concluded by the President which fall short of treaties are commonly referred to as executive agreements and

    are no less common in our scheme of government than are the more formal instruments — treaties and conventions. They

    sometimes take the form of exchanges of notes and at other times that of more formal documents denominated ‘agreements’ or

    ‘protocols’. The point where ordinary correspondence between this and other governments ends and agreements — whether

    denominated executive agreements or exchanges of notes or otherwise — begin, may sometimes be difficult of ready

    ascertainment. It would be useless to undertake to discuss here the large variety of executive agreements as such, concluded from

    time to time. Hundreds of executive agreements, other than those entered into under the trade- agreements act, have been

    negotiated with foreign governments. . . . It would seem to be sufficient, in order to show that the trade agreements under the act

    of 1934 are not anomalous in character, that they are not treaties, and that they have abundant precedent in our history, to refer to

    certain classes of agreements heretofore entered into by the Executive without the approval of the Senate. They cover such

    subjects as the inspection of vessels, navigation dues, income tax on shipping profits, the admission of civil aircraft, customs

    matters, and commercial relations generally, international claims, postal matters, the registration of trade-marks and copyrights,

    etc. Some of them were concluded not by specific congressional authorization but in conformity with policies declared in acts of

    Congress with respect to the general subject matter, such as tariff acts; while still others, particularly those with respect to the

    settlement of claims against foreign governments, were concluded independently of any legislation.

    You might also like