CTA Case No. 3583 (Decision)

MEPURltC O F i H E PHILI PPI NES COURT OF TAX APPEAL3 Q U�ZON CITY SEA-LAN D SERVIC E, INC., C.T.A. CASE NO. 358 3 Petitioner , - versus - COMMI SS IONER OF CUSTOMS , Res pondent . X- - - - - - - - - - - - X DE C I S I 0 N The pe titioner, Se a-L and Se ~v i c e , Inc ., s hipping agent o f oce an going ve sse ls S/S "MOBILE V- 30 0" .::. nd S/S " GATEWAY CITY V- 694 " invo l ved in the conveya nce and discharge of unman ifeste d cargo at t he Port o f Manila ad j udged viola ti ve of the Cu stoms � .laws and acc or d ingly me t e d the corr esponding a dm inistrative fi nes, sought appr opriate r e lie f i n this pet ition filed on Febr uary 19 , 1983. Briefly described: 1) ~ dm in i s tr a tive Case No. 102 68/78 - S/S "Mob i l e " V-300, Registry No . 1431 ar r ived at th e Port of Man ila on July 2 , 197 8 from Keelung , Ta iwan and d ischa rged Forty Two ( 42) .cartons tennis r ackets with cove r withou t the prope r and accur a te inwar d shi ppi ng mani fe st. As amende d the ma ni f est appeared a s follo ws : PACKAGE HAN IFESTED SHOULD BE MAN I FESTED 40 ctns . tennis racke t s 42 c t n s . t ennis rac ke t s wi t h cover wi th c over (Forty (40) .c t ns . only) (Fo rty t wo ( 42) ctns. only) . 215

DECIS I ON - CTA CASE NO. 358 3 - 2- 2) .Admin i stra ti ve Case No . V- 1 0269 / 78 - S / S 11 Gateway Ci ty " V- 694 , Regist r y No . 89 3 arr i ved at the Por t o f Ma ni la on May 25 , 1 97 8 f rom Oakland, Ca l ifor n ia , u .s . A ~ and discha r ged unmanifested c a rgo c ons is t ing o f t hree . (3) .containers STC package s o f au to/ truck parts fo r a s sembly we ighing 2 , 886 kilograms whi ch a ppeared as f ol lows: AS MANIFESTED SHOULD BE MANIFESTED No t manifested 3 con t ainers STC 7 packages a uto/tr uck pa rts f or a ssembly (CKD ) 2 , 8U6 kgs . The sa i d amendments we re approved by the Bureau of Customs wi t h t he no tat i on "Wi thout pre j udice to admin is- trat ive action aga i ns t the vessel" The c ase s we r e jo i ntly heard and a de c i sion was rende r ed by t he Co l lec tor of Cus t oms (Port of Man i l a ) on J ul y 22 , 198 0 i mposing a P30 , ooo . oo fine on each for violation of Sect ion 1 005 i n r elation to Section 2521 o f t he Tar iff a nd Customs Code, a s amended, hereunde ~ quoted i nsofar as per ti nent . The r e s pondent Commissioner of Customs aff i rme d t he same on Augus t 31, 198 2. "SEC . '-1-00 5 . Manifest Requ ired o f Vesse l from Foreign Port . - Eve ry vesse l f rom a � forei gn port must have on board a c omplete man i fest of a ll he r ca r go . All of the c ar go i ntended to be landed a t a por t i n the Ph i li ppine s mus t be de scr ' bed i n separ ate man i f es ts f or e ach port of call there i n . Each manifes t sha l l i nc lu de d the port o f de- par tur e a nd the por t of de l i ve ry with t he mark s , n umbe r s , quantity and descript i on of th e packages and names of t he cons i gnees thereof. x x x " 216

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 358 3 - 3- ' SEC. 2521 . Fai l ure to Supply Requi s ite Manifests . - If any vessel or ai r c r aft en ters or d~parts from a por t of entry without s ub- mitting the proper mani fest s t o t he c ustoms author ities, or s hall enter or depart conveying' unmanifested cargo other than as stated in the nex t prec eding section he reof, such vesse l or aircr af t shall be fined in a s um not less than ten thousand (Pl o,.oo.o. 00 ) pesos but not exceed ing thirty thousand (P30,o oo ; oo) Resos. x x x " The basic question i s noth ing mo re than the effect ive application and enforcement of the per tinent provisions of the Customs l aws as brough t t o bea r upon the circums- tances of the cas e before Us . ' By and lar ge , petitioner apparently would have o part ove r th e shippe rs� faux pas, of e i ther " sportshipment" or "computer err or " in the declared i nward for eign rna- nifest, rather have its own justification nest led on 1) ." good faith a nd lack of fraud ulen t intent" ; 2) ."has not her e tofore been gui lty of a li ke anomaly"; and 3) ." acted promptly in amend ing its mani fests" . Anent t he good faith r aised in the first , it rnay be necessary to repeat what this Court said in the case of Sea- Land Se r vice, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs , CTA Case No . 3529, Febru a ry 29 , 198 4 involving the h~ rei n petitioner and what so plainly apply to the case at bar that , "Petitioner ' s proffered good f a ith and disclaime r to any knowle dg e of the un declared items in the ~ onta in - er i zed c argo can no l onger be a prospect that c an e asily be r e c onc iled wi th the intended i mpe rative. Conveyed an d discharged were unmanifested cargoe s f a lli ng sha r ply 217

DEC IS ION - CTA CASE NO. 3583 - 4- at odds with the caveat essentially addxessed and directly bro ught to bear upon the carriers, xequiring a man ifest of a true a nd accurate descr ip tion of all the cargo : And , ' doing business in the Ph il i ppines , it behooves the master or owner of a vessel to abide by our c ustoms laws and r egulations and to ignore them is nothing short of care- l e ssnes s and incompetence .� (Delg ad o Shippi ng Ag encies, Inc . v. Commissione r of Customs, CTA Case No. 2685 , Feb- ruary 15, 1977, Ce r tiorari denied, G. R .L~6 262 , July 6, 1977; c ite d in Commissioner of Customs v . CTA, 91 SCRA 263) ~ I n a rulin g o f similar i mport this Court said 'We can do no less but ho ld the herein petitioner acc oun t- able for such de v iat i on from th e pe remptory demands of the law, the proffer ed good faith as an encapsulating pa nacea in bashing the de linque nc y notwithstandi ng . Th is spec ie of irregularity was not propitious then, it cannot , now . (Delg ado Shipp i ng Agency Inc. v. Commissione r of Customs, CTA Case No . 3089, Decembe r 28, 1981)~" The second hardl y pr esents a gripping quest ion . The cited Sea-Land Serv ice , Inc . , case of c losely analogous facts and iss ues of the mold no differ en t from the insta nt case had herein petitioner repe ating t he s ame eg r eg i o us blunder . We reach t he same r uling, thus, "What we hav e in the case a t bar a re vir t ual Pandora 's box of incrimina t ing shipments th e importation of which was found in porit ive breach of the governing statutory 218

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3583 - 5- prosc ript ions. Indeed , t here can be no f urther occasion to specul a te upon how the peremptory demand t hat ' Ever y vessel from a foreign por t must have on board a complete manif est of al l her cargo ' (Section 1005 , ~~) '� which far from showi ng a ny mere r esemblance of a n illusion , should be enforced , As ' The mandate of the law i s cle ar and we c an not settle fo l ess . The law imposes the abso lute obliga tion, unde r penalty fo r fail ure , upon every vesse l f rom a forei gn por t to have on 'board c omple te writte n or type written ma nifests o f all her cargo signed by the master ' . Where the law requir es a manifest t o be kept or del i vered , it i s not complied with unless the man i fe st is t rue and accu rate � (U . S . v . SS I slas Fil ip inas, 28 Phil. 291 ; cited in Mac ond ray & Co ., Inc . v . Act ing Commissione r o f Customs , 62 SCRA 432) ~ Upon the r ecords before Us there is nothing to t a ke the case out of the operati ve effects of the cited codal prov i sions as unde rstood and applied.� Third, the r ectif ication of the manifest by amendme nt could but be a sort of an anacoluthon fo r a venture pet itioner was unprepared , so t o speak. "The statute makes no disti nct io n nor doe s it est~blish a n except i on as rega rds the ve ssel's failure to s upply the requisi t e man i fes t . Subsequent amendme nt add s no i ns u- l a ting rel i ef for ' even gran t ing a r guendo , that the amendment was appr oved and t herefore val i d i t does not 219

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3 58 3 6- in anyway relieve t he ve ssel from the lia b ility hic h she already incurr ed p rior to t he amendment . (Nacond ray & Co ., In c ., v . Acting Commissione r of Cu s toms , 62 ~CRA 534 ; Comm i ssioner o f Cus t oms v. C . T .A., 9 1 SCRA 2 6 4; cited in S e a-L an d Service, Inc. v . Comm i ssioner of Customs, C.T. A. Case No. 3529, Fe br uary 29, 198 4 )~. We do no t th i n k a ny d i ffe r en t c oncl usion o ught be rea c hed in t he case at bar . FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the c i r c umsta nc e s obt a i n i ng compel Us to s us tain the respon de n t Commi s s ioner of Customs' decision . The caveats are valid and e xp l ' c i t enough and are not meant to be considered passe ', as thus, t he p et ition is hereby di s missed wi t h c os t s agai n s t the petitioner . SO ORDERED . Que zon City , Metro Ma nila , Sep t ember 14, 1 984 . WE CONCUR; ...._ ~'-j/'''["" ~...C....t:......, � ROAQU I N e J udge 220