Commissioner of Customs vs. Hon. Court of Tax Appeals

The Court held that where a cargo manifest is filed but contains an inaccurate declaration of weight, the specific penalty provision of Section 2523 of the Tariff and Customs Code governs, not the general penalty for failure to file a proper manifest under Section 2521. The principle of statutory construction Generalia specialibus non derogant (a general provision does not derogate from a special one) dictates that the special provision prevails.

On July 20, 1966, the vessel SS "NORMAN" arrived at the Port of Manila carrying a shipment of 1,400 Multiwall Paper Bags. The vessel's cargo manifest declared the gross weight of the shipment as 3,620 kilos. The bill of lading and subsequent customs appraisal revealed the actual gross weight to be 36,197 kilos. The ship agent, Smith Bell & Co., Inc., filed an amendment to the manifest on July 27, 1966, to correct the weight, which the Bureau of Customs approved without prejudice to any administrative action. In 1969, the vessel was charged with violating Section 1005, in relation to Section 2523, of the Tariff and Customs Code. The charge was later amended to allege a violation of Section 1005, in relation to Section 2521.

• On July 20, 1966, the SS "NORMAN" arrived at the Port of Manila. Its cargo manifest listed 1,400 Multiwall Paper Bags with a gross weight of 3,620 kilos.
• The bill of lading and a customs appraisal established the correct gross weight of the shipment was 36,197 kilos.
• On July 27, 1966, the ship agent, Smith Bell & Co., Inc., filed an amendment to the manifest to correct the weight. The Bureau of Customs approved the amendment.
• In 1969, a charge was filed against the vessel for violation of Section 1005, in relation to Section 2523 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
• On March 16, 1971, the charge was amended to allege a violation of Section 1005, in relation to Section 2521.
• The Collector of Customs found the vessel liable and imposed a fine of P7,000.00. The Commissioner of Customs affirmed this decision.

• Petitioner Commissioner of Customs argued that Section 1005 imposes an absolute obligation to have a complete manifest on board. A manifest with an incorrectly stated weight is not a "proper" manifest as required by Section 2521.
• Petitioner contended that an inaccurate weight declaration constitutes a failure to submit a proper manifest, thus violating Section 2521. Liability could be incurred under both Sections 2521 and 2523.

• Respondent Smith Bell & Co., Inc., argued that a manifest had been filed and the cargo was manifested; only the weight was under-declared. This did not constitute a failure to file a manifest or the presence of unmanifested cargo under Section 2521.
• Respondent maintained that Section 2523, which specifically addresses weight discrepancies, was the applicable provision. Furthermore, the requisite finding of carelessness or incompetency under Section 2523 was absent.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the inaccurate declaration of cargo weight in a manifest constitutes a violation of Section 2521 (failure to submit a proper manifest) or Section 2523 (discrepancy in declared weight) of the Tariff and Customs Code.
  • Whether the respondent vessel could be held liable under Section 2523.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive: The Court ruled that Section 2523 is the proper provision. A manifest that is filed but contains an inaccurate weight is not a "failure to supply" or an "omission" penalized by Section 2521. Section 2523 is a special provision that specifically governs weight discrepancies and must prevail over the general provision of Section 2521 pursuant to the principle of Generalia specialibus non derogant. The Court further ruled that liability under Section 2523 was not established because the second requisite—that the discrepancy was due to carelessness or incompetency—was not proven. The filing of an amendment to correct the manifest demonstrated diligence and good faith.

• Generalia specialibus non derogant — This principle of statutory construction holds that where a statute contains both a general provision and a specific provision applicable to a particular situation, the specific provision prevails. The Court applied this to hold that Section 2523 (specific to weight discrepancies) controls over Section 2521 (general penalty for improper manifests).
• Principle Against Double Jeopardy — The Court noted that interpreting the law to allow penalties under both Sections 2521 and 2523 for the same act would violate the constitutional protection against being put twice in jeopardy for the same offense.

• "If the weight of the cargo is in issue, the provision of the Tariff and Customs Code properly applicable is Sec. 2523, not Sec. 2521. A special and specific provision prevails over a general provision irrespective of their relative position in the statute."
• "The law does not even require the weight of the cargo to be specified. Thus, the inclusion of the weight of the cargo in the manifest in a lesser amount than its actual gross weight does not thereby render the manifest incomplete."
• "To suggest as petitioner contends, that liability can be incurred under both Sections 2521 and 2523 aforestated in the instant case would render nugatory the principle against double jeopardy."

• Manila Railroad Co. vs. Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 30264, March 12, 1929 — Cited for the principle that a special provision prevails over a general one in the same statute.
• Lichauco & Co. vs. Apostol and Corpus, G.R. No. 19628, December 4, 1922 — Cited for the same principle of statutory construction (Generalia specialibus non derogant).
• Wil Wilhemsen Inc. vs. Baluyut, G.R. No. L-27350-51, May 11, 1978 — Cited for the rule that where two statutes apply equally to a case, the one specially designed for it must prevail.

• Section 1005, Tariff and Customs Code — Requires every vessel from a foreign port to have on board a complete manifest of all cargo, specifying required contents but not mandating the inclusion of weight.
• Section 2521, Tariff and Customs Code — Penalizes the failure to supply requisite manifests or the presence of unmanifested cargo. The Court interpreted "proper manifest" in this section to mean a "complete manifest" under Section 1005.
• Section 2523, Tariff and Customs Code — Specifically penalizes a discrepancy of more than 20% between the actual gross weight and the declared weight of a manifested article, provided the discrepancy is due to carelessness or incompetency.
• Section 21, Article III, 1987 Constitution (and Secs. 3(h) & 7, Rule 117, Rules of Court) — Cited in relation to the principle against double jeopardy.