fee —E pees gp go & capac 26 the ss Tun HO - vs. = GeTeAe CASK NO. 2636 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, et al.

DECI SION

©. TeAe CASE NO. 2636 » 2 « inspection ‘en the veesel, it proceeded to Abulug, Cegayan, which is within the custome district of Aparri, for the purpose of loading lege.

On Ostober 13, 1972, the Collector ef Cus- tome, Port of Aparri, received a letter from Brig. General, Godefredo F. Mendoza, AFP (Ret.), Director, RASAG@NEL, which reads as followes

13 Gctaber 1972

"The Collector of Customs Port ef Aparri Aparri, Cageyaen

Sirs

Quoted hereunder is en intelligence infozmation received from one of our agents in the field for your information, guidance and for whatever ection you may deem proper to take an the premi ses:

"In the evening of October 12, 1972 while 1 and Agent Pascual Fran- ciseo were assigned on board the fo- reign vessel SS Tung Ho the 3rd Of fie cer of said vessel who geve his name as FOO KOK GHEN contected us te look fax buyers of ed goods — KOK CHEN, these @amggled goods are im the possession of some of the crew members of the said vessel. Because of this deal, i informed Wa, Benjamin Agl » the Customs Inspector aes on board said vessel and hie two (2) Customs guard compenions. All of us decided to det the crew members of the vessel DECI SL.GN CeleAse CASE NU. 2636 oa 3 SS TUNG HO seo thet when the neq getiations are being made they will be caught red handed.”

Thank you for this and other fevers. Seabetabe’r? vast Brige General, AFP(Ret) Directer, RASAC-NEL - Qn Coteber 14, 1972, Customs perseanel of the Port ef Aparri, composed of Joel Macatiag, Pedro Lansi and Vicente Cudale, Jz., together with some ASAG agents and three enlisted man of the Coast guard, proceeded to Abulug, Caga- yan, and conducted a thorough search of the said vessel and subsequently seized 9 decks of Taiwanese pleying cards aad one (1) Taiwan made folding umbrella which were cleverly hidden near the rudder of the veesel, The seized articles were not entered in the Manifest of the veesel, the Parcel Liste, and in the Crew's Personal Effects List. The seid search and selzure were certified to by the Master of the beat, Chang Hal Ming, as ha- ving been conducted in the presence ef the Chief Engineez and Chief Officer of the beat, Theseefter, the goede were seized for violation

DECI SION

CeleoA « CASE NO, 2636 of Section 2530(g) of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 34, autho- wiging the forfeiture thercof, The vessel like- wise violeted Section 1005 of the Tariff and Customs Cede in relation to Section 2521 ef the same Code, which authorizes the impositiscn of a fine not exceeding 716,000.40), On November 12, 1973, the Collector of Cus» tems, Port of Aparri, rendered a decision and declared the forfeiture of the said 9 decks of Taiwenese Playing Cards and one (1) Umbrelle to the government for vicletion of Section 2530

(g) of the Tarif? and Customs Code and imposed the maximum fine of 710,000.00 upon the vessel or its agent considering thet the vessel in question has been tagged as a notorious carrier ef smuggled articles.

On eppeal, the Commissioner of Customs rendered g decision, dated Cetober 7, 1974, af- firming that ef the Collector of Customs, Pert of Aparri. He reduced, however, the fine of P10,000,00 to F2,000,00 considering thet the unmanifested articles of 9 decks of playing cards and one (1) umbrelle are meager in quan-

DECI S1ON

CeleAo CASE NO. 26% - § « tity and of small value.

Petitioner, not satisfied with respendent's decision, appesled to this Court on November 22, 1974, esponcint filed his answer to the peti« tion on February 24, 1975, and alleged thet this Court hee no jurisdiction over the present petition since it was filed eut of time because respondent's decision, dated October 7, 1974, was received by petitioner on October 10, 1974 while the petition for review was filed with thie Court only on November 22, 1974 or beyond the 30-dey period prescribed by Section 11 of Republie Act No, 1125.

The two issues submitted to this Court for resolution are the fal lowing:

1) Whether or not thie Court hes juris- diction over the present appeal; and ' @) Whether or not the $5 “TUN HO" carried unmanifested cargoes

EARSE_1SSuEs

Respondent contends thet this Court hes ao jurisdiction to take cognizance of the present appeal since the decision of the Commissioner of Customs dated October 7, 1974, was received by

ObCi SLON

C.TeA. CASE NO, 2696 « 6 a petitioner on October 10, 1974 while the petie tion for rewiew wos filed with the Tax Sourt only on November 22, 1974, or beyond the 30-day pe- zied far appeal.

_ We tind the vicw of respondent untenacle bee couse the petition for review dated November 6, 1974 was mailed to this Court on the sane date, We have elready ruled that the dete of msiliag the petition for seview, not the date of actual receict of the pleadings by this Court, is con- sidered the date of filing the appeal (Gigere vs Comm, of Custens, CTA Case Mo. 1047, Maxch 4, 1963). :

When the decision of respondent Canmi saloner of Customs, dated Ccteber 7, 1974, was received by petitioner either on Gcteber 9, 1974 ss con tended by petitioner, or October 10, 1974, as alleged by respendent, the said petition far ‘peview dated Novenber &, 1974 and mailed to this Court on the same date wes filed seasonably within the 20-day pexied presczibed by Section A} ef Hepublic Act No. 1125. This Court has, there- fere, jurisdiction tc take cognizance of peti- tioner's appeal. | DECI SION | oy GeTsAs GASE NO. 2636 a a seo ses | Petitioner maintains in ites amended peti~ tion fer review that the decision of the respen= dent Counisaioner of Customs ie ersoneous, cont teary to law and the evidence since the vessel 55 “TUN HO" did not carry unmenifested carge for the @ decks of pleying cards end 1 umbrella seized on beard the vessel because they consti- tute the crew's personal effects and, therefore, they need not be included im the Cargo Menifest.

Respondent maintains the opposite view, He contends that the apprehending officers disce= vered and verified that the 9 decks of playing cards and 1 umbrella, found neer the rudder of the vessel are not part of the crew's personal effects.

Respondent's view is well taken. From the fects end records of this case, it was estabe lished thet the SS “TUN HO” carried unmanifested argo, in violation of Section 1065, in relation to Sections 252} and 2530(g) of the Tariff and Customs Cede.

It is very clear from the ship's manifest that it declared no Import and Through Carge.

Sell Gi

CeToAe CASE MO. 2636 | However, efter the seerch, the eparehending of ficers seized 9 decks of Teiwanese playing cards and 3 | Telwanese folding umbrelis which were not entered in the Cargo Menifest, Parcel Lict, or in the Crew's Personal Effects List. Consequent= dye the cargoes in question were unmanifested. im ‘fect when the 9 decks of playing cords anc } by the apprehending officers near the rudder of the vessel, Custons officer Joel Mecetiag even infcrmed and showed the master of the ves= sel the articles seized on beard thereof and the seid mester of the vessel willingly sduite ted end certified thet the seized articles were not manifested. He further certified thet said search and seigure were conducted in the presence of the Chief Officer and Chief Engineer of the veosel in question, Petitioner*s allegation that the 9 decks ef playing cards and 1 Taiwenese folding umbrella found on beard the vessel in question constitute the crew's personal effecte is aislesding end Supreme Seurt to include" al} goods, wares and merchendise abosrd ship which do net form part 20

DeSL SiON

SeTaile CASE NO, 2636 «o Ge of the ship's steres."(U. 5. vs. Isles Filipinas, 28 Phil. 291.) /4t has else been said thet the word “cargo refers te the “entize lading ef the ship which carries it" and includes ali goede, wares, merchandise, effects, and indeed every thing, of every kind or description, found on board, except such things ss are used cx ine tended to be used ia the menagement ex direce tion of the vessel end ere not intended fer de Livery et any port of call, and except alee, perhaps passengers or immigrants and their Bage gages" (U.S. vs. Subi, 32 Phil, 228.) The broad definition of cargo obviously embraces the play- “Ang cands end umbrelle in question insemuch es those articles are neither part ef the ship's . Stere nor were they used or intended te be used ia connection with the menagement or direction of the ship in question.

The seized articles cannot alse be considered es personal effects becavae they were not incleded in the Crew's Personal Effects Liste. Mereever, the crew's personal effects are those articles or things carried or brought in by any of then as for theig personal convenience and used! The places however, where the 9 decks of

SiGi

eToie CASE NO, 2636 e jO«e playing carde and the umbrella were seized belies the claim thet they are personel effects because they were hidden in secret compartment and not in crew's querters.

Hanser Section LUCS ef the Tariff end Custcas Code, At As an imperetive obligetion of every vessel to heve on board a complete mapifest of all hee cafgoes. Ne exception is me&tioned in the statute. (saith Bel} & Co,, (Phil.} inc. v. Comm, of Customs, CTA Gases Nos, 1728 & 2922, July 22, 1969), The vessel 95 "TUN ii. * failed to comply with this imperative obligation and, therefore, non-ohservance thereof subjects the vessel to the adminictrative penalty under Sec- ‘tion 2521 ef the same Code. (Macondray & Coe, ING. vee Comm, of » OTA Case No. 2140, Nov. 15, 1972.) However, the fine of P2,000,00 imposed upon the agent of the vessel appesrs harsh and excessive under the facts and circume tences of this cease.

WIBREPCRE, the detision of the respondent Commissioner of Customs, appealed from is moe Gitied. vetitioner as agent of the vessel

DECI SION

CTA CASE NO, 2636 SS "TUN HO", is hexeby ordered to pay said ree- pendent a fine of 1,000.00, - With coste. ape .

Quezen City, January 7, 1976.

Aoseciate

A Series 4 Cia