Court of Tax Appeals
0CTA Case No. 240
OE
%
A -
oe
REPUBLIC OF Tri PeILIPPINES
COURT Of (ax APPEALS
MANILA
CG. FP. ANGELES & COnPany, as
Bebitioner
\o|
Se Tobe
times « CASE NO, 240
THE COmMmMISS TONKA OCF CUSTOM,
. Respondent.
ee a
DEC IS TON
This is a petition te review the decision on
appeal of respondent Cowmissicner of Customs, sie
fixming the decision of the Collector of Custens
for the Port of Menils anc cecreetng the torfeiture
of three hundred (200) cartons “Hormel spam" on the
ground of alleged vielation of Central Dank Cireu-
lars Nos, 44 and 45 in relation to Section 1363 (f)
of the Aovised -dainatstrative Code.
This case was sudeitted for decision on the
basis of documentary exhibits presented vefere this
Court snd on the record ef the case oefore the Sureau
of Customs, From the facts established it appears
thet soudietine in December, 1954, there arrived in
the Fert ci Menila on board the 5.5, “MONTUA" from
San Prencisco, Califernia, U.5./. 8 shipment, des-
Gribed {n the accompanying shipping decurents as
“canned meet: 6CO cartons canned beef". The ship-
ment was declared under intry No, 99846, (Exhivits
"F* and “1")and covered by bill of lading tio. 16
“Yate 2/9
SO a Se a
=e
= tee Cy
-
———
°2«
(SF-Menila), dated November 12, 1954, of the
American Prosident Lines, Ltd. (Exhibits "J" and
"7"), Commercial invoice, of even date, of the
Triad Trading Co, (Exhth{t “N*), consular invoice
No, 17903, (Exhibit “P"). The entry filed was ac-
companied by Central Sank release certiftcate Ref,
No. M0826, deted November 23, 1954 (Exhibits
"K* and “8*) which suthorized release of the shtp-
ment a6 "600 ctns. Canned Jeef*, and classified it
a6 "NEC", with an assigned Commodity Code No.
©1305, Upon examination thereof by custons autho-
rities, the {mportetion wes found to consist of
KO cartons of canned veef and OC cartens ef hornel
spam, On the theory thet the hormel span should
properly be classified as pork under Commodity Code
No, 010904 (UZ), the said articles were detained by
customs officers under @ warrant of detention and
seizure, However, pending the sefrure proceedings,
the importation was released to petitioner upon the
filing of MICO Surety Sond No. 7624 issued by the
Maleyen Insurance Co., Inc. in the amount of ©12,929.35,
After the said proceedings were completed, the Col-
lector of Customs decreed the forfeiture of the XO
cartons of horme] spam for vieletion of Central bank
Circular No. 44 in relation to Section 1363 (f) of
the Kevised Administrative Code. Petitioner appeeled
from said decree of forfeiture which hewever was af-
fiemed by respondent not only on the ground cf slleged
a 2417 oly
—_—
DECISION -
CeleAe CASE NND, SO »~ 5 - violation of Central Sank Circular No, 44 but Cen- tral Sank Circular io. 45 «8 well, For the proper disposition of this case, it is necessary to resoive the following issues:
(200) Gertons of hornel spea in question the Statistics] classification of Couno-
SS of the Central Beky a
2, Whether ar net the eaid shipment serrata teeta ta 2" crest atte to Section 1363 (i) of the Kevised duinis- trative Cede.
(te fmportation ef the three hundred (300) certons of hormel spam wae authorized and made under a foreign exchange 2llocation to impert goods, en braced within Cemmedtty Code Me, 010905 (NEC) aad described 36 "Beef" of the subdivision: "seat: in Airtight Containers". ©n the theory that the shipe ment in question {s perk and not beef, respondent Glassified the shipment under Commadity Code No.
©10304 (UI) of the same subdtiviston whtch calls for "Pork". Tha label of a sample of this importation, Sxhibit "2°, indicates the following ingredients of hormel spam: "chopped pork shoulder meat with haa meat added and selt, water, sugar, sodium nitrate and flavoring". There {s no better evidence of the ingredients of the impertetion in question than whet is recited in the lebel, The label ettests to tne fact that hormel spam {s matnly pork, Pork fs "the flesh of swine, fresh or salted, used for foods snectf.. salt cork". (Webster's New International “4 218 2/9
DECTS ION «
G.T.A. CASE NO. 240 o« & aw Dictionary, 2 Ed., p. 192%.) Contrarily, veef ts | "the flesh of an ox ox Gow, oz any bovine sniaal, when slaughtered ior foca". (iiebster's New Intex- national Victionary, 2 Ed., p. 244.) ‘tinile pork anc beef are ment, the former differs izem the latter and ialis under @ separate coumedity code number of the Stevisiica] Claseifiicaiion of Cou- moditivs. Consequently, we find that the horsel spaw an question peeperly felis unter Commedity Geode No. 010304 (UT). Tt logically follows that the importation of hormel spau (pork) was ef- fected contrary to the forelga exchanye license which authorized caly the impeortetion of canned beef undar Commodity Code ke, C1095 (MOC). This fact constitutes a vielation of centrelbenk Uloeu- dar No. 44 and the lmportetion ta quesiien heving been effected contgary to iew 1s subject io forfei- ture under the provisions of Gection 1363 (i) ef the Hevised Adainisiretive cede,Y tne tdentadiy, respon- @ent aisc ordered its forfeiture under Central Bank Circular Ne. 45, We find this teproper ta the pre- mises ter the resecn thet Centrel Bank Circular Ho, @ does not apply to importetions which Invelve the sele of fereign exchange ag the case #t bar. Hore~ over, this importation wes livelled before and de- Glared forfelied by the Cellecter of Customs of Manila only for visletton of Central Sank Circular Ne. 44, ie belleve that respondent oa appeal has NO power to order the forfeiture on &@ ground ether
_— EE
a a lace alae i ire
VEC TS ION -
GeTeA. CASE NO, 240 e$- than that stated in the libel, as the same would constitute a ceprivation of the importer’s property without due process of lew, In avoidance of the penalty cf forfeiture, the petitioner argues that it should not be held responsible fox the inclusion of the three hundred
(300) cartons of hormel spam in the shipment because said inclusion hss been the product ef voluntery exrer on the part of the shipper, Triad Trading Co, Without deciding whether or not the error of the shipper in shipping prohibited merchandise to the importer frees the merchandise irom the penal lfa- bility of forfeiture, we cannot agree with peti- tioner’s argument. There ts no sufficient nor satis- factory showing that the shipper-company comaitted a voluntary error. If there wes really sn error, the least that petitioner could have cone wes to make representations with the friad Trading Co. regarding the error, which it did not dco. Petitioner's letter, Exhibits "I* and "6", advising the Collector of Cus- tome of Manila “thet the shipper made @ mistake in filling our (Petitioner's) order, x x x“ does not justify a finding of error on the part of Irtiad Treading Ce.
WHEREFORE, the decision on appeal of the res- pondent Comaissioner ef Customs, exderiny the ior- feiture of the three hundred (300) cartons of hormel spam for violation of Central Sank Circular No, 44 is hereby affirmed. We decree the forfeiture in ; 29 () , ass” we rar ee OE er a GeTeAs CASE NO. 240 -¢< favor of the Kepublic of the Philippines of MICO Surety Bond No. 7624 of the Maleyen Insurance Co., Inc. in the amount of 12,929.35, which wes ftied for the release of the Importation tn question, With costs agsinst the petitioner.
vO OADERED, Manila, Philippines, May 16, 1957.
- “eggs Pen 2 oth
I CONCUA:
Associate Judge
AUGUSTO fy LUC TAINO