Macundray & Cos, Inc., et al. vs. = C.TEAS Case Ro, et al.

CN UE Nt TE

Seren eee

@EPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

_ COURT OF TAX APPEALS

QUEZON CITY

MACUNDRAY & COs, INC.,

in ites ty as agent

of the M/S "TOREADOR",

Peti

@

- versus = C.TeAs CASE RO, 2539

COMMEZGIONER OF CusTUMS, = =

DECGCILSION X

This is an appeal filed by petitioner Macondray

& Co., Inc,, in its capacity es agent of the M/s

*TOREADUR", from the decision rendered by respondent

Commissioner of Customs, affirming that of the Col-

Leeter of Customs of the Port of Manila in adminis-

trative Gase Ne, V-455/69, imposing on administrative -

fine of P14,792,59 against the vessel for violation

of Section 2523 of the Tariff and Customs Code,

“Phere is no dispute as to the facts of the case,

As alleyed by petitioner in its petition for review

and admitted by respondent in his answer:

| I, Petitioner is a corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the Philippines and is the

shipagent in the Philippines of the M/S “TORSADOR",

respondent Counissioner of Customs is the government

eutherity in charge of the enforcement of the Pariff .

and Customs Code of the Philippines, and may be served

429

DECISION «

CTA CASE NO. 2539

«o 2«

with summons and other processes at the Bureau of

Customs, Port Area, Hanila, |

II, Om oF about April 22, 1969, the H/S “TORBADOR"

arrived and docked at the Port of Manila under Customs

negietey Bes T6Ry end Vhesentece Glechaspet, crene

other cargo, 231 bales of cotton end rayon remnants

declared under Bill of Leding No, 193, dated March

10, 1969, consigned to JUCICOR COMMMRCIAL, Manila.

III, Im Administrative Case No, V-455/69, the Col-~

lector of Customs, Port of Manila, charged the M/S

“POREADOR” with violation of section 2523 of the

Tariff end Customs Code for allegedly conveying and

discharging the 231 beles aforementioned with an excess

weight of more than twenty (20%) percent of the gross

weight thereof ss declared in the vessel's manifest,

IV. Petitioner, in answer to the charge, advised

the Collector of Customs that it wes not liable for

the fine sought to be imposed by the letter and mani-

fested its desire for « formal investigation on the

matters hence, an investigation was conducted by the

Law Division, Bureau of Customs, |

Vi. In @ decision dated October 12, 1972, the

‘Collector of Customs of Manila found that the 4/s

_ "POREADOR" violated Section 2523 of the Tariff and

Gustems Code and sentenced said vessel to.pay « fine

of 14,792.59, nee

VII, Within the reglementary period, petitioner

430

DECISION «

CTA CASE HO, 2539

» 3 «

appealed said decision to respondent Commissioner of

Customs, On June 15, 1973, said res:ondent, in

Customs Case No, 72-38 (Adm, Case No. V~455/69), ren-

dered « decision affirming the decision of the Col-—

_ lector of Customs referred to in paragraph Vi hereof.

‘Copy of respondent*s decision aforesaid was received

by the undersigned attorneys on June 26, 1973 and is

hereto attached as Annex “A".

Respondent denies in his answer, however, the

averments under paragraph V of the petition for review

(a) The vessel relied on the sworn declaration

of the shipper of said 231 bales, which stated the

gross weight thereof to be 75121 ibs, as reflected in

the vessel*s bill of leding and manifest,

(b>) The gross weight of the shipment as declared

_ dm B41 of Lading No, 193 was furnished by the shipper,

with the M/S “TURADOR” heving no material participation

in the computation or declaration of such weiyht therein.

* (e) The shipment was freighted on measurement

basin. . .

(4) ‘There is no lew, Philippine or American,

which requires shipping companies to check the weight

of packages or bales to be leaded on board said

companies’ vessels, and that no shipping line in the

United States has facilities for checking the weight

or contents of said packages or belies,

ee eee

431

DECISION =

CTA CASE WO, 2539

s@«

(e) The alleged discrepancy between the declared

and actual weight of the shipment was not due to the

carelessness or incompetence of the master, owner,

officers and crew of the M/S “TORBADOR",

Respondent siso denies the allegetions under

paregraph Vill of the petition for review with regards

to the errors committed by him im his decision sppealed

from, or the decision being contrary to law and the

these stated as effirmative and special defenses in

his answers —

3, That the 231 bales of assorted textile remnarts.

consigned to Judicor Commercial were manifested in the

accompanying Bill of Leading No. 193 dated Merch 10,

1969, as heving « gross weight of 75,121 pounds, but

upon actual examinetion, the gross weight thereof was

found and verified to be 100,078 pounds or 24,957 pounds

more than the weight appearing in the bill of lading.

4, Theat Section 2523 of the Tariff and Customs

Code provides: |

DECISION «=.

CTA CASE NO, 2539

S. That Section 1005, same Code, imposes an

absolute obligation upon every vessel from e foreign

port to heve on board e complete, true, and accurate

manifest of all her cargo (U.S. vs, SS “Islas Filipines",

28 Phil, 201; U.S. va, Steamship “Rubi”, 32 Phil. 228);

end

6. That in a similer case, this Court, quoting

the case of Sherman, S & 8 Ry. Co. v. Conly (37 5.W.

- 253-254), seids |

“A demand for ‘weight or emount, or some-

thing more definite® does not necessarily include

end embrace quantity, (Quantity may include

but neither of these Sipe terms, are

synonymous with quantity, A shipment ,

See Sey De See St See ng the quantity |

ether manners than by weight or amount ,.."

tenithe Bell Co,, Ince, in its g ae as agent

of the SS “CHANGSA", Petitioner, « Commissioner

of Customs, Respondent, C.T.A. ine’ No, 2396;

underscoring supplied),

After the isesves were joined, the case was set

for trial on the merits but the hearings were invariably

postponed mainly because of the manifestation of peti=

tioner that the parties intend te submit a stipuletion.

of fects for the approval of the Court, However,

during the hearing on November 16, 1977, petitioner

submitted, without objection of respondent, this case

for decision on the basis of the pleadings and the

customs records without offering proof as te the truth

of its own allegations, While the parties were given

time within which te submit their memoranda, respondent

did not file his memorandum,

DECISION « .

CTA CASE NO, 2539 |

The issue is whether or ast the veasel H/8 “foreados®

and/or its ship agent, petitioner herein, are liable for

the fine for violation of Section 2523 of the Tariff and

Customs Code, | |

One who prays for judgment on the pleedings without

offering proof as to the truth of his own allegations, and

without giving the opposing party an opportunity to in

of all the material end relevant allegetions of the

opposing party, and to rest his motion for judgment on

these ellegetions taken together with such of his own as

are admitted in the pleedings, (Bavermenn vs, Casas, 10

Phil, 366) Evangelista vs, De Lea Rosa, et al., 76 Phil, .

115.) There seems to be no question, therefore, that

the 231 beles of assorted textile remants in question

have been manifested in the accompanying bill of lading

aa having a groes weight of 75,121 pounds, but upon

and verified to be 100,078 pounds or 24,957 pounds more

than the weight appearing in the bill of lading, and on

the basis of the customs records (pp. 60 and 71), as

found by the Collector of Customs, the discrepancy of

more than twenty-five (25%) per cent between the actual

gross weight and the gross weight declared in the bill

of lading was due to the carelessness or incompetence

of the master or pilot in command or employee concerned

of the vessel,

434