Court of Tax Appeals
0Opt Smith, et al. vs. Commissignhtr of Customs, et al.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COURT OF TAX APPEALS
QUEZON CITY
Opt
SMITH, DELL CO., Tape in ite ee & gn kent of the 83 * Petitioner, versus
COMMISSIGNHTR OF
CUSTOMS, ses pondent.
Renee we we wee ee ew
DBecreoitea
bie CePehs CAGE NO, 2396 ~~ This is an apreal from the decision of re- _ spondent Canmissioner of Customs, dated July 1%, 1971, holding the vessel s* “CEANGIA” and/or petitioner, as shin agent thereof,
Mable for
violation of Section 1905, in reletion to ‘ection 2521, of the Tertff ond Customs Code, and tmposing 4 & fine of 95,000, it appears that on March 31, 1 56568, the vessel SS “CHANGSA” arrived at the port of Yenila with . rd various merchandise, among woich, was 3 case of compressor the weight of whieh was not stated tn the cargo sanifest. . In April 16, 1968, an anend- ment to the sanifeet was filed by cetitioner vith the Soreau of Customs so as to show the weight of saié cargo,’ woich amendment was aceepted ‘BecIsics « | GTA CASE NO, 2396 .
witbout prejudice te an administrative setian - sgninst the vessel, On May 6, 1971, after the ternination of the adminfetrative proceedings, the Collector of Custoss rendered & decision tnposing & fine of 5,900.00 against the @f “GUANGSA” and/or its agent on the ground thet the extesion te in= clude the weight of the compressor was @ violation of Seetion 1905 ef the Teriff end Custos Code, punishable umter Seoticn 2521 of the same Code. ‘Npom appeal by setitioner, ssid decision of the Collector wan effiresd by the Conntssioner of Cos- tomas Senee, this epreals Can gitnaipht Kague $0 detiue Me neetnetnten of the weight of & carge in the vanifest is s vio~ lation of Seetion 19°F of the Tariff ané Costone Code punishable under “eetion 2521 therent.
The opinion of respondent 2s that when the law requires thet the santfest shall dnelute tlie “auantiix” sré@ “deseriation” of the pectages (or articles), the welgut thereof ts deemed covered dy the requirenent, In other words, the terns “quaotity and Aesariction” include weight of the cargo, Consequéntly, when the weight ef ‘the cargo is not shown in the oenifest the same const! tutes # violation of Seetien 1005 of the, Taritt and Cur
DECISION «
CTA CASE NO. 2396 toms Code which ts punishable by s fine onder Section 2521 thereof. ; .
Petitioner seeks to impugn respondent's in- terpretation thet ugight is deemed included in “quantity and deserintion” by differentiating the three terms in the lieht of eertain anthorities.
Yor instaner, om gnantity and weight, petitioner invokes the case of Sherman, 8 &S By. Cosve Conly (37 See 253-254) wherein it was held:
A desend for “weights or ancunt, or something more definite" does not’ necersarily include and embrace quan- titye entity may include veights oer bet neither of so eea er terns, are securately synony- nous with "quantity", A shipment: of gh is well established in this stote thet statutes of the character to be enforced tn this ease be strictly and Ra phenemnin com plied A a in order to recover the penal * ’ And on"yaight and deserintion, the definition of the letter by Bouvier hac been cited thus:
A written account of the state an@ condition of personal property, titles po, ae and the it is a xind of ers but is more Se Bn By in ascertaining the axact rRCIsIas « CTA CAST NO, 2396 m Finally, it is contended thot the lawmakers 414 not intend to dnelude weight in ‘eetian 1005 as @ requirement for a sanifest because there is o separate provision on weight in Seetion 2523 of the Tariff and Customs Code imposing & penalty on ’ gertain discrepancies in weights.
We are not insenstble to the foree of peti« tioner's argument but, we think, the more logical and plausible interpretation is that taken by ree spondent. iy ;
Section 1005 provides:
GEC, 1005.
DRCISION ~
OTh CASE NC, 2396.
5 A eargo manifest shall in no case be a or altered after entry of the vesse 2 were by means of an amendment by master, consignee or agent thereof, under ee end “importation hae been coupleted. 2 f It is ‘sini that the perticulars required to be _ fneluded in the cargo manifest are the following: \ (1) port of derartures (2) port of delivery; . } (3) marks, numbers, quontity and deseription of < the packages; and (+) names of the consigneess \ guess 9 no specific mention in these particulars about the veight of the article. “otwi thetanding | this, however, it may not readily be ssauned that | the Legisleture intended thet euch an equally impor- tent date af weight should be omitted or exeluded | @8 ® requirerent. In the first place, Section 1005 | pequires thet there wust be a “complete eanifest" | of all cargo, and that ell cergs Meoet be des- cribed in eeparate sanifests", By the legal re- quirement that there mst be o “eomplete manifest” \. and thet the “earge most be described” therein,
DECISION =
CTA CasP NO, 2396 the object, in our opinion, is not simply toe can« fine the partionlere to the outward features, such es nusberpings, maruings and the like, mt to inelude such other important data ac weight. A manifest, sfter all, 14 a ‘sumsary of all the bills” of lading for: the cargo of a vertsel (21 Ave dur. 24 809). And among the data required of a bill of lading 19 the weight of the article.
In any event, it is not ferfetched to con- -gider thet onder the tern “gugotity" - one of the . requirenents te be included in the manifest « weight ta deemed ineluded, at least insofar as the Tertff end Customs Code te concerned. The sethority cited by retitioner eecainst thie intere preteticon conversely sursorts the care eather than contradiets 4t, Thos in Shermon, 5 & 8 Ry. “ow vs Conly, gSuore, it is seid: i.
A sinus for “weight or ope ore definite” does no orcs Pmve ted = enbrace quantity. inelnde neither of or > are aceasta penne a wi th quantity. ee of lueber may be designated by other by weigh (Cinderiining supplied.)
Tn other words, the ters “quantity” used in the law {s broed enongh to enbrace or include weichh. Bot when the law specifies only veight, the latter . _@annet be construed to inclode or enbrace sow.
or ee eee ° 51
Phan “2
PRCTSIM «
CTA CAGR AC, 2396 7 [ tnere are some provisions in the teritt and Customs Code wiich lend sunport to the caretruetion that the weight of = earce must be xtated tn the “manifest. for example, “ections 1105 and 2523, re- spectively, provide as followss Y ¥ “ STC, 1105. Ragecenhs hoami.sed _ . @e For the purpore of making entry, there hall be presented to @euetems boarding official four et of 6 genere! declaration —— shall contain the following ar J» Cargo sentfest together with informetian es to names of consignees, their netionelities and their adéretses, cusbere and carks of pckages nature of poods, destine- tion, gross veicht and Value.
any 9 in the nani fest exceeds by more then twenty per the or 1 reof, © “olleetor shall be of pt-pt Me that such dis«- ere wae due to the carelessness or peteney of the sacter or pilot in commend, owner or employer of the veesel or "streraft, @ Tine Bg not more then fifteen per the value of the package or 4 Bo in respect toe witch the deficiency — may be imported wpon the sorting vessel or airereft. (Un- pe ty te supplied.)
DRCISION
CTA CASF NO, 2396 The provirions of Section 2923 eortainily brings the thought thet weight of « cargo is @ requirement for e wanifeet. Otherwise, there wovld be no point in sroviding for a penalty, senuming that the declared weight fn the menifeet is wrong and ts @ue to the enrelesenacs or incomnetency of the owner, offieer or employee of the versels ) / In interpreting end construing the provisions of the Tariff and Custens Code, this Court should “not be striet in the sense thet the seme are treated _@8 pensl laws. “ather, this Conrt mst be fair. and reasonable to carry out the legisletive inten- tion. | | e ‘8 « Statutes to prevent frauds revenve are considered to tp oanee for the publie good, snd therefore, although they 1 petsl- ties or forfeitures, are not te be canstroued like nenat laws generally, but ere to be feirly and eg wag constroed so es to carry out the legis- Dees 1M, De 866.~) Statutes imrosing customs duties ere remedial in chareeter rather than penal, since they are intenfed te | fraud, suppress peblie wrong, ond promote the public good, They should be so conctrued as to carry oat the intention of Congress ir onening them and ee shjecte s+ lan to ti.
DECISION ~
CTA CAGP WO, 2396 9 Courts will not cling to the letter of a statate and give it © literal internretation when it will not serve the true intent end purpose of the legislature. The prinsry eanstderation in the interpretstion.of law is the intent end purpose of the lawnaking body. )(See Yellow Taxi and Pasay Transportation Workers' Union v. Mardile Yellow Taxi Cad. “ne, 80 Phil, 833; Salaysay v. Castro, ' $2 Off. Game 30753 Tavada v. Cueneo, GR, Mo. Le 195920, Yebs 26, 1957; Mi'l. Sugar Centrals 4ceney Vs Collector of Customs, 51 Mil. 134, Gomez v. Government Insurance Seara, 78 Phil. 2165 Ledesne vs Phetain, 79 Phil. 95.) In the ease of Torres « lamjep (56 Pail, 141), the Suprece Court, eiting Sotherland, the foremost authority on statutory construction, saide - in the interpretation and con- etruction of a statute the intent of the lawmaker ; on always be ascere tained and n neg pt and ccurts will net fol tae the fatten ate statute when it leads ewey from the ‘true intent and purpose of the Legise lature and to conclusions inconsistent with the spirit of the Aet, Gm this enbdgeet, “utherland, oremost euthoit the f y on ro {awit ip conetruetion, . Saysr fo e is valid i 8 to nave effect preg he rpose and intent the lunes the
DECISION =
OTA CASF WO, 2396 , he {intent is the vitel part, the essence cf the law, and the primary rule of construe- tion is to ascertain and ¢ive effect to that intent. The intention of the legisleture in enacting @ law is the lew itself, and aust be enforesd ‘when ascertained, although {t may not be consistent with the strict letter of the stetutes. Courts will not follow the letter of a statute when it leads awey from the true intent and purpose of the legisisture and to con- clusions a gerne with struing statutes the oroper course is to start out and follow ( Te rule that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of others is merely an eid to the ascertainnzent of the meaning of « lav and must yield whenever o contrary intention on the part of the lawnaker is present, (°pringer'v. Govern- ment of ' leg 277 UsSs 189, 72 Le obs B45, 2 Sup. Ct. Hep. 480.) In & cave wierein the respondents contended “that Sule 27 is not applicable because it 1s not mentioned in Section 19 Rule +. « oy» ané {ogluaie unius eat exeluaie alterius, enumere- tion of certein rules, exelndes others", the
DECISION «
OTA CASR NOg 2396
1 ‘Supreme Court helds That legs] maxin is well- known, and respondents’ positian. geons at first blush tenable.
4.9 Af »_* si* lad wer ale, | supplied.) ) .
of in view of roar interpretatian that the weight | of e cargo is deemed included in the particulars requined to be stated in the manifest under Section 1005 of the Tariff and Cnstons Code, the nen- | inelustoan thereof in the canifest ancounts to a violation of said section, and is, therefore, punishable under Section 2521 of the same Cade. r we find, however, thst the fine of ©5,000,00 imposed by the Buresu of Customs for said viola- tion &s exeessive under the cirousstances of this CaSO. ™is case is of first impression and in- volver a diffioult question of laws Accordingly, it ia our opinion thet a fine of 9200.00 upon the Verse! should serve as an adequate penalty WEERTIORE, the decision of respondent Som- missioner of Customs is hereby modified by re- ducing the amount of the fine from P5,000,00
DECISION =
CTA CAGE NO, 2396 — 12 to 8200.00, We costs.
SC ORDERED, Wwenon City, April 39, 19736:
~ Samat M, UMALI |
Presiding Judge
we COMCUR:
; Cpu ba Re a esociate Judge