Yepublic of the Philippine! Court of Tax Appeals. Quezon City. 3 Compania Gfgral Dr a Tabacss De Ytliptmas, et al.

YEPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINE!

COURT OF TAX APPEALS .

QUEZON CITY .

3

COMPANIA GFGRAL DR a

TABACSS DE YTLIPTMAS, the:

in its enpecity ar

of the Uh" Me

versus CTA CAS NO, 1939 COMMISSIONFR OF CUSTOMS, ; Respondent.

Reece ee ernese ak

DEC SIOR

This is an aporal from the decision of re~ spondent dated May &, 196%, affirming that of the Collector of Customs of Mantle witch imposed an administrative fine of 500.00 on the "'/S "Lexs Maersk" for carrying unmenifested cargo in violation of Section 1995, in relation to Seetion 2521, of the Tertff and Gustons Code.

} It appears thut.on April 22, 1966, the M/S “Lexa Yoersk," @ vessel engaged in foreign trade ané of which petitioner is the local ship agent, srrived at the Port of Manila carrying cargoes eon- sisting of truck parts consigned to Yutive Sons Hard- © were Company, “anila. Upon oxaminetion by the Cus- toms authorities, diserepancies in the number of packages entered and the number of packeges mani- fested were discovered. The inward manifest of the vessel listed only 171 packages but the import entry

DECISION «

listed 173 packages. Consequently, the Colleeter of Customs of Manila instituted administrative proceed ngs agsinst the veesel for carrying unmani- feuted cargo, in violation of Teetion 1005, in rele- tion to Seation 2521, of the Tariff and Customs Code. Prior to the said proceedings, petitioner requested permission to smend the inward cargo manifest te include the other two packages not covered by the menifest, which smendment was allowed and approved by the Customs authorities.

after due hearing, the Solleetor of Customs ren- | dered his decision imposing « fine of #509,00 on the “/S “Lexe Meersk," whieh decision, on appesl to the _ Commissioner of Customs, was affirmed on May ©, “4968. Menee, the instent petition for review.

The only issue to be resolved in this case is whether of not the aduinistrative fine of 900.90 imponed on the vessel is in accordance with lew, Seetions 1005 and 2521 of the Teriff end Cus~ tons Code, vpon which the imposition of the fine wes besed, provide:

5 Gaaphely GUMANGGe=n Gh Gar Genes” All of the cargo intended to be must be described in someere mani- fests for each port of call therein.

PRECISION «

CTA CASE 10. 1939 5 depurtare nt fee portear geltvany rit @ por e ;

the marks, numbers, quantity enh eee eription of the packages aad the names of eonsignees thereof. “very vease) from 4 foreign port must have on board te manifests of posoenenes and their ba » in the proseribed forn setting forth their destination and ail rtievlars required by the iumigration te oe —— +> mag A _ have orepared or sentation proper official upon arrival in of the Seg. &. complete list of all — sea stores on board. If the vessel does not carry cargo or passengers the manifest — that - earge I - senger, 6s case » 43 ear from the port —~ a : of by the master e@ or agent thereof under oath, and attached to the original » That after importa - @orde@ in the office of the appraiser, no amendment of the manifest shall be allowed, except when it ie obvious that a clerical error or any other discrepancy has been committed tn the wes Le r been a importation has been completed.

” or de ‘from a port of without nba Bae 9 os ag te the eustons authorities, or shall enter or depart = fested other than as in the next pre« section hereof, such ves- sel of air shall be fined in » sum as required by law.

Petitioner asssils the legality of the imposition of the administrative fine. It is argued that a clerigal error was comaitted in good faith in the preparation eof the manifest and when respondent allowed and ap- proved the amendment, the same had the effeet of curing the defects or faults appearing in the original manifest. In other words, it is the contention of petitioner that the liability of the vessel for eay- rying unmanifested eargo was cured or cblitorated by the amendment of the manifest whieh wes allowed and approved by the preper Customs authorities.

The issue ig not new. In the ease of ‘aconéray _ and Company, Ine. v. Commissioner of Customs, C.T.A, Case No. 1930, December 27, 1969, which involved a siniler teense, this Court helds There is no dispute that the four (%) eartons of electrical were not

DECISION «

CTA CASE NO. 1939 5 sa Sgelaredta' the atty evening the perts dee Fa) antry disputed shipment was forr (%&) cartons more than whet were declareé in the — original inward foreign manifest of the su vessel. Althongh this amendment wes allowed and appreved ty erstons eethorities, the same €14@ not heve the effect of obliterating the Mebility of _ the vessel inourred eo to suvendment, Section 1005 of the Teriff end Customs Code, is so clear ané explicit when it every vessel end on sg gen to —— any at.

teat tne pureene al 1%

DECISION «

CTA CAM HO, 1939 .

lining supplied.)"

evident pose of ¢ SSoastbes uacme fan ne. guRinehian, custome revenue. Yor this reason te accent the interpretati not _ Of petitioner.

oe Petitioner further asserts that “the provision of the law on amendment 1g designed to oroteet the master, agent of cousignes from the error, mistake or diserepaney committed by him in the preparation of the original manifest and that it is unfair and uncalled far to coneiInde, as the respondent held in this ease, that the right to amend the manifest is for the principal purpose of protecting innocent importers." whether the purpose of the law in per-

DECISION «

CTA CASE MO. 1939 7 mitting amendnent of a vessel's manifest is to pro~ tect the master, agent or consignee of the vessel, or the importer of the goods, is to our mind of | slight significance. Under Section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code, no relief from lisbility for the fine 4s granted where an amendment of the manifest is allowed.

WAPARPORR, the decision appesled from is hereby affirned, with costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERTD, ~ Quezon City, February 26, 1971.

Me

Presiding Judge

St

RAMOR L. AVANCREA

Associate Judge

»» 44