He!'T·L:, et al. vs. Commissioner of Customs

HE!'t·•l:,tc OF' THE PIIILIPI'!:'IFS

(;:,t:IUl' <W T.\X

r PP E~\.LS

Ql'EZ()~ Cfl'y;'

MACONDRAY & co., INC., in its

capacity as agent of MS "TOREADOR",

Petitioner ,

- versus ...

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ,

Respondent .

C.T.A. CASE NO. 2082

X - -

~ - - - - - - - - - -

~ - - - - X

D E C I S I 0 N

Petitioner has appealed from the decision of

respondent dated February 10, 1970, imposing upon

the vessel MS 0 TOREADOR" and/or its agent a fine

of ~1 , 000 . 00 for alleged violation of Section 1005

of the Tariff and Customs Code, in relation to

Section 2521 thereof.

There is mo dispute as to the facts .

On October 27 , 1965, the MS

11TOBEADOR" arrived

at the port of Manila conveying sixty-nine (69) car-

tons of auto parts although her inward cargo manifest

listed only sixty-one (61) cartons of auto parts ~

In order to correct the discrepancy, her ship agent,

Macondray & Co., Inc . , filed an amendment to the

manifest on October 30, 1965, which was accepted and

approved by the Bureau of Customs without prejudice

to the filing of an administrative proceeding against

the vessel.

On August 6, 1969, after the insti-

tution of administrative proceeding, the Collector

of Customs rendered a decision holding the vessel

•

DECISIO:N -

CTA CASE NO. 2082

2

MS .. TOREADOR• and/or its agent solidarily liable

for a fine ef ¥l, OOO. GO for violation of Section

1005, in relation to Section 2521, of tae Tariff and

Customs Code.

On appeal to the Commissioner of

Customs , the latter affirmed the Collector 1s decision.

Hence, the present appeal.

The only issue is whether or not the MS "TOREADOR•

and/or petitioner herein, as ship agent , is liable

for the fine for carrying unmanifested cargo pursuant

to section 1005, in relation to section 2521, of the

tariff and Customs Code.

Petitioner contends that the imposition of the

fine is illegal becauses (1) the failure to manifest

the eight (8) cartons of auto parts was committed in

good faith;

{2) the amendment to the original mani-

--

~'

-

~

-

fest cured i ts defect and absolved the vessel from

liability; and {3) the unmanifested cargo was duly

described in the bill of lading, commercial invoices

and entry papers of the vessel.

·The issue before us is not new.

In previous

cases involving similar or identical issues , the legality

of the fine imposed by the Commissioner of Customs

for failure of the vessel to b.ave a complete manifest

of all her cargo has been apheld, rejecting such de-