Court of Tax Appeals
0capacity as ts e@ S/3 "SOKO Manu", et al. vs. = CTA Cask NO, et al.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPiD
COURT OF TAX: APPEALs
QUEZON CITY
capacity as ts e@ S/3 "SOKO Manu", = Versus = CTA Cask NO, 2718
COMMISSIONER oF CUSTOMS
Respondent, Le /#¥ tw sc eee ewe ee eee ee
DeCIseieon
Appeal by petitioner Citadel Lines, Inc., in its Capacity as ship agent of the 5/5 “Soko Narn”, fram the decision of respondent Comsissionar of Customs dated June 18, 1975, affirming the decision of the Collector of Customs of Manila (in Administrative Case No, Ve534/ 70) imposing a fine of 719,860,600 upon the said veesel and/or petitioner for violation of Seetion 2523 of the Tariff and Customs Code, the provisions of which reads The 6/3 “Soko Maru", with Registry No, 1545, arrived at the port of Manila on August 12, 1969 an? fisciiarged Uhenwat 4 Sedge Sonebabing of 26 bales Of asserted tom . tile remnants, The total weight of said cargo as stat» 349
DECISION «
ow D ef in the bill of lading wes 14,928 pounds but, upon examination by a customs exariner, it was ascertained that the actual weight was more by 25,410 pounds, or af excess of more than 20 per cent of the declared weight Consequently, the Collector of Customs instituted admin istrative proceedings (Administrative Case No. Ve53+/70) against the vessel 9% “Soko Maru” for violation of Sece tion 2523 of the Zariff and Customs Code, On Janmary 3, 1975, the Collector of Customs ren= Gered a decision holding the vessel and petitioner here- in liable for an administrative fine of F19,5 0.00 for violation of sestion 2523 of the Tariff and Customs Code. On June 16, 1975, on appeal by petitioner, said decision of the Collector was affirmed gm tote by the Commissioner of Customs. lience, the present recourse.
The igove is wether or not the vessel 3/5 "Soko Maru" and/or its ship agent, petitioner herein, are lia- ble for the fine for violation of Seetion 2523 of the Tariff and Customs Code, In its memorandun, petitioner meaintaina that the vessel 3/8 “Soko Maru" cid not violate Section 2523 of the Tariff and Customs Code because (1) there is no evidenee or proof that the discrepancy between the dec= lered weight and actual weight of the subject shipment was Gus to the earelesmess oF neghigence of the master, owner or employee of the vessels and (2) the weight doce lered in the bill of leding was supplied and furnished by the shipper an‘ was simply relied upon by the vesedl, 350 CTA CASH NO, 2718 a3 In support of the latter contention, petitioner invokes a decision of the Court of -npeals in the case of "The New Sealand Gos, Ltd, vee The llonorable Court of Apseals an@ Neyal IntereOcean Lines", (The New Zealand Iusuranee Coe, Ltda, VSe loyal Inter-Ocean Linas, CAmlisiise Ue 52383-%, December 19, 1977), wherein the said Court ruled "It is oustomary in maritime econnerce for shippers which, in this Gase MeV, Niders MADELSe aeeee a te give to the shipping agent what is & “proeforma bill of lading" containing ee Se soe So entoped ou consignee, In turn, the ing agent 05 gal eee in the ae anan the original b4£11 of lading, Times ate it ie nar May, We must treee the alleged short-e age of the sliipment, if any “s the shipper ang not to the vessel, x X X Xs Petitioner further assails tim amount of the cine in» posed by the Suresu of Customs as erroneous, unjust and excessive because it is based upon the value of the whole ne and not just upon by the valuo of the deficicnucy, Indeed, the issue posed by this case is not one of first impression, In ea long line of casea, where the factual setting is similer, if not exactly the same, to that in the ease at bar, this Court has ruled consiste ently thet under Seetion 2523 of the ‘ariff and Custons Code, the ascertainment ani verification of the weight ef the cargo at the port of loading is the duty or obe ligation of the master, owner or employee of the veorel, Yadling tims, the conclusion seems to be inevitable that there is an unexcusable laxity on the part of the master or owner in exercising the ordiuary esre ond prudence in 354
DSCISTON «
CTA CASE NO. 2718 o tm the comtission of excessive discrepuncy in the weight of a ship*s cargo penalized wider the law, Doing msiness in the Philippines, it behooves tlie master or owner of a vessel *to abide by our Customs laws and resulations and to ignere them ia nothing short of gross carelessness or incompetence, Consequently, if the diserepnney of more than 20% between the deolaved velght ane the actual weight of the imported article arose hecause of, or wiich could have been avoided if it were not for, his failure or onise sion to perform this duty, the inevitable conclusion is that be is negligent or enreless within the contemplation of the law. (Compafia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vay Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case Nog 2°76, ‘ugust 31, 19773 Macondray & Co., Int, Vse Comriicsioner of Customs, CTA Case Nog 2575, April 4, 1977, Certiorari denied in La'¥7010, October 7, 197 3 Delgado Ship ing Agencies, Inte ve. Commisgioner of Customs, CY) Case Mo, 27%, February 25, 1977, Cortiorari denied in Lat7hOh, “ay 5, 19783 Delgadc Siipring Agencies, Ince VS_ Coutiissioner of Cuge toms, CTA Case Noy 2721, Fobruary 3, 19773 Maconray & COs, Inte Va— Commissioner of Custews, CTA Case Nog 1656, January 21, 1977, Certiorari denied in Lal6287, June 20, 19773 Delgato Shipoing Agencies, InG, ves Coumissioner of Customs, Cl) Cane ting 2548, September 30, 19764 Fs, Zvuellig, Ines vs. Commissioner of Customs, C/A Case Hos 2360, April 10, 19753 Macondray «< Cos, Incy vs. Conmige y, sioner of Customs, CTA Case Ho 2928, Ootoher 31, 19734) /~ we find no plausible reasen to depart from this rule,
DECISION «
CTA CASE NO, :2718
~ So
the deeision of the Court of Appeals in the case af New Zealan’ Insurance Co., Lids. vs. loyal IntereOcean Lines, cited above, notwithstrnding, In the firat place, the fasts and issue in the said ense, which is an action for alleged shortage an’ contamination sustained by the shipment subject matter of the case, are not simfiar to those involved in the present proce ding, which is an ade ninistrative case against a vessel for violation of See tion 2723 of the Tariff and Customs Code, And in the secom! place, fouresquare with the instant appeal on this point (interpretetion and application of Section 2%23 of the fariff and Custonis Code), by reason of the elose identity of the parties, the issue litigated and the factual setting of the ease, ate the cases citede above wherein the pronouncements and rulings of this Court in at least four (+) eases, which were brought to the Suprese Court upon potition for review on certiorari, were @ismisseé by the High Court, thus in effect sustaine ing am? upholding this Court's decisiong om this ques tion, (acon@ray & Cosy Ince ve» Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case Boe 2575, April 4, 1977, Certiorari denied in Lo¥701G, Vetober 7, 19773 Delgado Shipping Agencies, Ine. , vs. Commissioner of Customs, CIA Case Roy 27-4 February 255 1977, Certdorart denied in L=¥7¥0%, May “, 19783 Del~ gaado Shipving Agencies, Inte V0 Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case Hog 2685, Pobruary 15, 1977, Certiorari denied in 1=6262, July 6, 19773 Macondray & Co,, ints ve. Cam missioner of Customs, CTA Case No, 2656, Jounery dl, 1977, Gertiorari denied in 1<«46257, June 20, 1977.)
353
DECISION «
/ CPs GASB NO, 2718 - ~~ Concernim the omount of the administrative fine of 719,850,006, however, we fe.l that, although the sane moy have been cauputed eor-ectly by the Dureau of Cuge toms on ths besis of Seetion 2523 of the tariff ond Cuse tome Code, ti rednetjon therect is justified considere ing thet the negligence or incompetence of the master, owner, officer or employee of the Vessel in this ease Gees hot emount to willful negligence or gross incompet~ ence, end that the law ellows latitude in the imposition of the fines (Sea Delgado Shipping Ageney, In» Vie Come missioner of Customa, Cel aise Case lide 2729, June 16, 1978.) Aecordinghy, a fine of P5,000,00 is deomed just amd Pensonable unfer the promised, WEEAAPORE, the degision appealed from is MODIVIGbD, aii the veese] S/S "Goko Marn" anifor petitioner herein aro hereby ordersd to pay te the Bureau of Customs the administrative fine of F5)000,G0 for violation of seco tion 2523 of the Teriff and Customs Codeg With costs 89 OUDBR he wuezon City, Juma 30, 197%,