CTA Case No. 2537 (Decision)

�.rrm It !H'lliH. IC Ol<' I� !-11 L H'f'trH.t~i) COURT OF Ti\.X APPEJJ.S QUll.ZON CU1' 'if COhf?i\JL., GE~;;:;:;~rUd.; DE T.i-d3ACOS .DE FILIPif.\iF1S,, Peti.t :i.one r , �- v e.r.�s u s - 'l'HE co;,:r.n~.=;SIC;; !:.:.:<. O.F cu:::.TU�1S 1 Responde n t: . --------X DECI S I 0 N Th i s i s a petition to rev i e w t~e de c is i o n o: res0onden t Comm i ss i oner of Customs dated June 1 9 , 19 73 ( in Cu stcms Case No . 7 3- 39 ), inc reas i ng t he pena lty of f i ne i mposed by t h e Col l ector of Customs of Ha n ila o n the ver:>~::>e l ~) / S " Sa ll y i'1aers }\ " and/or it s ship agent pet i tioner CompaBi a General de Taba c o s de F i lipinas f r om Pl , OOO . OO to r2 , 000 . 00 in h i s decis i on in Adm i nistrative Cases No . V- 686 -7 2 and No . V- 686 -7 2-A , fo r vio l at i on of Secticn 1005 , in relation to Sec tiGn 2521, of the Tariff and Customs Code ., .i\.s bo r ne out by t.he n=:con'3.s of t.l":c 13-u.::ea u of Cu:::;�tom::>., t t appea r s �th a t on .r'larch 20 1 19 7 2 the S/ 5 '1 Sa 11 y Ma ersk 11 1 a f o rei g n ves s el own e d an d o pe ra t.e d b y t:.he Maers k Line~ a c ompa n y en ga g ed i n t he busines s of

CTA CAS E NO . 253 7 2 inter-ocean shipping and which is represented in the Philip p i~es by its l o cal sh ip agent , pet i tione r Compaftia Genera l de Tabaoos de Filipinas , arrived at the Port of Manila and discharged thereat certain cargoes which were no t listed in its Inward Forei gn Manife st , to wit : (a ) Thirteen (13) Pallets Firec l ay; and (b) One (l ) ca se1 Parts f o r Industrial Forklift Truck Gasoline Powered . In o rder t o correct the discre~ancy in the vesse lts cargo manifest , the ship agent fi l ed in April , 1972 , the c orresponding amendm ents , together with its writ- ten explana tions ; but the Bureau of Customs , not being sat i sf ied with the said explanations 1 simply a;?_:).r:-o v ,:ed a nd a ccf.::p ted the arnendrnent:s "v.Ji �th c ut p r e �- juc.1i ce �to a n adm:i.ni[.:;trc:lt. iv e act~ion .~J:;:JainE:t t:he vessel . " Subsequen t l y , fo r each of the se un ~a nife ~ted cargoes " tJJE~ Duree a u o f Cu s t.oms .ins t.i tutc:d l\drnin :Lf..; tra - tive Cases No . V- 686 -7 2 and ~o . V-6 86 - 72-A agai nst t:he vessel S / S " Sally I1a ers k " 1 w.ith the l oca l sh .:i. p age nt a s r esponde~ t , a nd after proper h9aring, the Co11ect.or of Cu.s terns of: t::he Port of r~ani.la re nde r ed a decis ion on Apri l 24, 19 73 holding the ves sel a nd/ or its ship agen t, petit ioner CompaB i a General de Tabac os de Fi l ipinas, l iab l e fo r a fi n e cf ~ 500.00 in ea ch adm inistr at ive c ase , or a total of P l, OOO . OD ,

CT~ CA3E NO . 253 7 .�. 3 fo r vio l a t ion of Se c t ion 1 005 , i n rel a ti on t o Se c tio n 2521 4 of the Tariff and Cu stoms Code . On June 1 9 , 1 9 73 , on a?pea l ~Y pe t itioner , th e Corrun:i.ss i. cnc-o .r of Cu.s�tcms :r�enc2ered a dec:Lsion mod i f y- ing the decision of the Collector by imposi ng an additiona l fine of Pl , OOO . OO on the vesse l for the said viclation , thereby increasing the t ota l penal ty to ~2 , 000.00 . ~ence , the present petition for review . Th e only issue for resolution is whether or not the vesse l ~::; ::.; " Sally t1aersk " and/ o r ii.:s loca l ship agent, petition e r Compafiia Genera l de Tabacos de F:ilip.inas , are U.ab l e fo.c the adr;�~ j_nistrat.ive fine inpoSE!d by -t:.he Comrniss:i.oner cf Customs for vj.o l ation of S~ction 1 005 , i n relat i on to Sec t ion 2521 , of the Tar i ff and Customs Code , the pertinen t prorisions of w1ich read as follows : ~) E C ~ 1 0 0 5 � �1a n ~L~.�.LR~~.L�.f:Q__.Qf__2g_~~ :C>.�; l -Everv From Foreian Port . ...--.. ..___ ..- . ~-�''"';-��-------�..;;J.,._ vessel from a ~-�� .J.. � � forelgn port must nave on board a complete manifes t of a l l her cargo ~ All of the cargo intended to be l anded a~ a port i n the Ph~lippines must be des - cribed i n separat e manifests for each port of cal l therei n o Each ma n ifes t shal l incl u de the port of departure and the port of de l i - very wi th the ma r ks , numbers , quantity and descri~tion of the packages and the naDes of the consignees t hereof . x x x $ If the vessel d o es n o t c a rr y c a r go or passenge r t he ma ni- f es t mus t sho w t h at no c a r g o o r passeng er , a s t h e c as e ma y be , is c ar ri ed f r om the port o f c.lepa r t: ur e t o t.h e po r t: o :f des U .nat :i. o n in t: h e Ph.i 1 i pp i nes,.

DI::CISICN �- CTA Ch~E N0 . 2537 4 -- A cargo manifest shall in no case be changed or altered after entry of the vessel , except by means of an amendment by the master, consignee or agent thereof, under oath , and attached to ~he original manifest ; Provided , '�TP,/C"]" h o �---~.~~...�.:.._._::~.._.::-, t~,;::,-)- ic�::-. ~r'\Jr� <�:.:.,. rlC~..t. -1r:::\,,..�r.�-� -8~~.[�1~.~..-..;..:y a��,.f-'�"e- �.�. .r...- "�\'8" ...... ... J .....; �� - t:.. 1,. _.. ..... l .... ' J. covering an importation have been receive d and recorded in the office of the appraiser, no amendment of the manifest shall be allowed, except when it is obv ious t hat a clerical erro r or any ether discre~ancy have been com- mitted in the preparation of the manifest, without any fraudulent intent, discov ery of '.-.:hich could not have bf:e n rrteJ.de until after examin2tion of the importation has been con- pletcd~ c . s .:;.E 2 5 2 l � .f._~1 i; l u r "L~!:;~.. ~.:a~.;,l_y_ He ':l::!~L~~..i!:.~ .Manifests . -I f any vessel or aircraft e nters ~~r: ~udE;~~~~~;-:r.."'t~ : :; f r c.:;ro a. :9::) .r t: () f t::l-1 t.r�:l -:",J i tl'-1c�u�t E~ ul)- rnit�ti r;g tJH~ r:: r oper mani.fe~3ts to t.he customs authorities , or shall ente~ or depart convey - ing unmanifested cargo other than as stated in the next prececding section hereof , such vesse l or aircraft shall be fined in a sum not .::.:xceecl:in<; ten t~hcusand. pescs . XXX The defense raised by petiticner in its petition for review and memorandum , which is si~i:.ar tc that interpos ed by it in th administrative proceedings before the Bureau of Customs , is ~hat the failure t o manif:'es�t tl1e subject cargcf.::s vias due t.u t:he de l ay "in the mails of the manifest sent from abroad and that the Government is res~onsible for such delay . Con - sequently , si nce there was no intent to defraud the Governme1t in the failure or omission to manifest the said cargoes, the vessel should not be penalized . (See pars . 8 & 9, Petition for Review, pp . 3- 4 , C. T . A. records & petitioner ' s memorandum, pp . 43-46,

!) .E CI 5'3IC).t�~ CT~ CASE Nu . 253 7 r~ J- On t.he o ther:� h.'::lnd , re3l~ondent. m::Jin�ta.ins t:hat the fact that the �il urs o r omission of the v e sse l t.o rr: arl j_ ft-:.:s t . tt-1e c:arsJc)c:s j_n. <"~!.l.lC.:E; t ic� r1 \-:tts c3.tte to t.1'1t.? de l ay in the ma ils o f the manifest sent from obroad and tha t the re was no intent tc defra ud the Govern- tn�erl�t \�Jil l r1ot c: c) rlsti t. tl te a \/ C1 l.i cJ (}E;�e r1.sc (;r� e!r.t exempt ing ci rcumsta nce against the imposition of the fine because under Section 1 00 5 of the Tariff a nd Custom s Code , it is the im pera ti v e obli9at ion o f e v ery ves sel c oming frcm a foreign port to have on boa rd a complete manifes t of al l h e r cargo ~ and t.her(.; i :3 no rnen t :L o n o:f any exception in t he st:a. tut. e ~ ,. 32 Phil . 235-242 . {p . 5 , Memo ra ndum fer R "t,.r,:) ~ ... U..C)l 1 Respo ndent ; p . 56 , C.T . A. reco rds .) 11 f.\D<)t.h e.r: ~;t.:c c; n s=J ;.:--t.?C3E:i()rl fcJr� r-1c)t CJ.1j()j;,Jt. i -:1CJ the int erp r e t ation ad voc ated by pe~i tion er is f OUr1cJ. ir1 �thE~ p ern .i C :i (.) 1.13 C C)J.'l S E~Cl'ltC~ n c: (:! vf[-�) i C ~h wo ul d flow from s uch c onstr uc t i o n . If we are to exempt the ve sse l fr om li ab ility lor c o n- "{lt~yin.g 1J 11 ~n c::.r1.tfe~:;t.eci c~a.-cg c; l)y tl�1E~ sirn:;>J..e .r E~ <.l s c; n. c: f <:t e1 a :.l in �t }) (-: rna i.l s, :i. t~ t;.vrJ1..1 J (} (~ rnbo J. c.i E: r1 a nd encourage o the r v essels to de liberately lc) o.d. <.~a I~go �~,/ :i. t~1Lc:;�u. t . 1 is t. i J.1~f t~tl ~::n ir1 tl�l t.:: i 1:- manifes t s . If the unmani f ested cargo is dis c o v ered , as in the present case , the ma - nifest could be simply amended as there was no intent t.o defr2ud t h e qove .cnmen t and �thus

DEC ISI . N "'" C'l'A CJ\.3E NC; . 25 37 - 6- free the ves s e l from any l iabil i ty whatsoever; but if the unmanifested c a r go i s no t discov ered , the same wou l d ente r the c o untry f r ee of d~tie s and taxe s �to the det.rimen t of the Government " In both i nstances , thr:; owner o r mas�te r of the vessel has nothing to lose but everyting t o gain. On the other hand 4 the Governmen t i s t he loser o Such a resul t would not be in k eeping with the evident pur pose o f the l aw i n providing effective means for the collection of customs revenue "" (pp ~ 6-7 ~ Res r ond ent 1 s memoran dum, PP o 57-58 , C.T . A. r e cords.) The Court fully agrees with the position of res- pondent o In previous cases of similar or i 0 entical nature as the case at ba r, this Court has c o nsistent- ly and unequivocab l y re i terated its co~1mitment to t:he princip l e , as laid dqr.,.m by the Su p r-eme Cour t , that the law makes it an imper ative obliga t ion of every vessel c om ing from a fo r eign por t to have on board a c ompl ete a nd prope r manif e st of a l l her cargo a nd to this mandatory requiremen t no exception is mentioned or allowed by t he statute. \under Section 1 005 of ~ he Tariff and Customs Code1 i t is a n imperati ve obligation of e very ~ess el from a f oreign port to have on b oa rd a compl ete manifest of all her cargo. No exception is mentioned in the statut.e . Neither i s t .here me n tio n of any excepticn in Section 2521 of said Code pro- viding for a fine fo r vessels witho ut p roper manifests , no r in Section 2530 thereof pro- viding the c o nfiscation of unmanif es ted goods � .:�he J.:.!:.�9..QQ.:.i i.:l._o n bv__t h fJO ur_t__9 f al1.Y a t ._t;.�mP'l: ~t;.o r ead ..l.D t q_.!-.b..�_:?_:ta t.':-1 t.L~_�2:5,�_e1)t 1<:;!&_~ c 11 2-:'L_m ~.�..;?l~J D�!l n t.._Q.f__<;LC?.Q.sl~~o u l.fJ.._l?~_c.s~n!�.~�.�. to the oervasive sp i rit as we ll as th e clea r ~gi.~ of '!79e afo resa:LciProvi?IOn~ :---"(smfth, Bel l & Co .. (Ph i l . ) I n c., vs o CorruT,issioner of Cu stoms , CTA Cases Nos . 1 728 & 1 921 . July 2 2, 1969 ; Compa~ia General de Tabacos de Filipi n a s

DE C I:ncr; .:~r1\ C;-~ s 1~ r,:J ~- � 2 5 3 7 - 7- vs . Commissioner o f Customs , CrA Cas e No . 2 1 4 3 , June J O, 1 9 7 2 ; Ma c ondray & Co ., Inc. c:�r/1. V .~; a. (~C)rnrn:Lssi(J !1E~.r C)f (~u.::�>i:OITL:S ., C: c.ts e r~[{) (,l 206 7, O ct ~ 6 ~ 1 9 7 2 ; Ma c o n dra y & C o . ~ I n ca v s . Comm i ssioner of Cu stoms , CTh Cas e No . 2082 , Sept . 1 7 , 1 9 7 4 ; Maco n d r ay & Co . , I n c . "\l S o Cornm. i ss.ic�ner o f C~ust,Ot'!ls , C~Tl\. C~ ase 1~ 8 . 248 4 , Ja n . 19 1 9 7 6 ; Compa~ ia Ge n e ra l de �r��a�na c os a,e ��"1�'1 l�pl�nas v s . c�omm l� SS l�one r o ~c: Customs, CTA Case No . 2 1 4 1 1 Ja n . 5 , 1 9 76 . ) (Underlining s upplied ) The rat i onale of t he f oregoing doc t ri ne as expl ic it l y and cl earl y enunci ated by the Sup r eme Court in U � .::3 . v s . 'I'he Steamsh:t p " FI. u bJ. " ~ 3 ~ P hil . 22El , J. S : liThe e vident in ten t. a nd objec t of t h ese r equirements for the submission of mani f ests b y a ll v esse l s f r om f oreig n po rts i s t o i ~ p cse u pon the owne r s a n d off ic ers of such vesse l s an i mpe r a tiv e obligati o n t o s ubmit l i s ts o f t he entire lading of the ship in t h e presc r i bed fo r m, i n o r der to fa cil itate the labo r s of the Cust c rns <:H~d Immig r ation off i cers , and to defeat any attempt to make use of such v esse l s to secur e the u n~ awfu l en ry of persons o r t.h.in ~. s into the I s 1 a n d s � ~3..9__.�:;5.~-:.::?.F� t::i.:?.~....J:E._..~~~~?,;g__J:.n t:!2.�. 2 t 9_t u t::s::.t�.-_:2!2.:L.J;l~~---J~.:2-~:::~29I.!..it tg_g_ o :E_--~l n y_ . atternot to read an exceotio1 into t he �.t.ai1!.t e=~-~il!J d .~hi~ r d (E.: -.r ::1II <~~ =:~:~~r;~~9..t. -�t _he pu nY)s ~.:: Qf_~..!:..s....s~n.s.ct.rn,_:~!2.!: ? " (Undt~r- 1 i.n J n9 su pp li ed ) (Ci ted in Ame r ica n Steams h ip Agencies , I n c . vs ~ Cornmis::d.one r of Cl.l ~:-;�tom s .� CTA Case ~o . 105 1 8 May 3 , 197 7 ; Compa5ia Genera l de Tabacos de Filipinas vs . The Contrn i ssiC;l1(~.r of C:t.l .si.: cr~! 3 1 C'T' .:'\ C~ a. se t\o o 2559 , December 28 , 19 79 . ) Co n seq uen tl y , the fac t t~a t the omiss i on o r fa il ure to man i fes t t he v es 3e l 1 s cargo was c ommit- ted in g o od f a i th o r wi t ho u t fr a ud u l e nt intent or t ha t th e v esse l ' s mani fes t wa s 2me n ded o r cor r e c ted 51

.. -�- 8 �- wi th t h e app r o v a l o f the Bur ea u o f Custc ms o r t h a t s u ch om i ss i c n was Ccc u se d by the delav in t he mai ls - ... . . _ ..,,-.. -~lio _ _ _ _ __,_.._........._.. _~-��- ��-�-"'-~ .....,_ _,,__________ -�-�-�-----� --._ - of th e or i g i__na l man i fest se nt - f rom t he po_ rt o f '"'-~�'"'"_........ ....... . ......... ,. ,, _,_~-----�---�~--------..~-�-�-��- ...._, _:._,__........~... a n d ex cul pa t e the v ess el f r om t h e pe n a l ty o f fine prescribed u nde r Sect io n 252 1 of t h e Ta rif f a nd ( c e� .!.":. ,"-~�' o,��,l.~..rt�;c�1l.._L, J' . <".":~. G.'Jf:,.1,...i. Gl�-(-:.,:.. 1 de Tabaco s de d Fi li p i nas v s . Co mm i ss i one r o f Cus t c~s , C . T . A . Cas e No . 2 7 42 , September 1 6 , 19 77 ; Compa~ i a Gen e r a l de rr(]l)aCC)~:) dE~ :F i l i iJ i r1aE:) "VS . 'J: h e C()fnrn i ssic.. n e r <) :E (~ llS t. orns , C . T . A . .. C-~~~ se N,r~l � 2_S__ _~_, 9 , ___ ,_L__ n P~e- ~~ �,n-b-e-~ r .?. n0 , 1 9 7 9 . ) At any ra t e , the Cou rt fi nds petiti o n e r ' s def en se that t h e fa ilur e t o manifes t the c argoes i n ques tio n was due to the de l ay i n th e ma i l s of the vesse l ' s manifests af t e r t hey we r e a irma i led t o peti ti one r absur d a nd illog i ca l . the ma n ifests c ou l d served as a c ause fe r the convey - an c e of unma ni fested c a r go by th e ~sse l h a s n o t be en exp l a in ed by pe titi o n e ra To o ur mi nd , hovJe v er , ~:o uch a defense i s c onclusiv e t ha t the v esse l did no t h a v e on boa r d t he ma n i fes t s of t h e c argoes in q u es ti on in v t o l a t io n o f t.he e x p l i. e i t manda t: e c f t h e .Ln" t .ha t. pa t e n t l y d e mo n s trat e s the abse n ce o f go od f aith , no �t an :i.nd i c a t.i o n of in t e n t t o def r c.!U d t .he Gov c:: r: n men t

, . ... . ' l)E(~l :.:; I Ct<! - - 9 -~ of its rev enue , o n the part of petitioner. No error was th e r e f o re c o'nm i t ted by r es~� �onde nt Cormn _~ssi o ner of Customs in im posing th e penalty of ~2 .000 9 00 as fine on the Ei/S " .Sal l y !�laer:::;l<: " and/or petit..iotH:r herein Ccmpafl ia Genera l de Tabacos de Filipinas. for violation of Section 1005 1 in relation to Sec tion 252 1, of the Tar if f and Customs Code. ~HE~EFO~s . the decisicn appeal~d from i s aff irmed uuezo n City , Metro Man ila , Janu a ~y 28 , 1980 . 1 cu~cm<. : . ;? / ,/ �-- .. ......--;: '-r-~J2_'7. CCl,~.u~:r .. \~~'1'� rC . P.()i-1~-l lJll-J .1\ssccia�te .�. udge