Mepurltc O F I He Philippines Court of Tax APPEAL3 Qu£Zon City Sea-Land Service, Inc. vs. Commiss Ioner of Customs, et al.

DECISION -

CTA CASE NO. 3583 - 3 - ' SEC. 2521 .

Fai l ure to Supply Requi s ite Manifests . - If any vessel or ai r c r aft enters or d~parts from a por t of entry without s ub- mitting the proper manifest s t o t he customs author ities, or shall enter or depart conveying' unmanifested cargo other than as stated in the nex t preceding section hereof, such vessel or aircraf t shall be fined in a s um not less than ten thousand (Plo,.oo.o. 00 ) pesos but not exceed ing thirty thousand (P30,ooo; oo) Resos.

x x x " The basic question i s noth ing more than the effect ive application and enforcement of the per tinent provisions of the Customs l aws as brough t t o bea r upon the circums- tances of the case before Us .

' By and large , petitioner apparently would have o part over the shippers• faux pas, of e i ther "sportshipment" or "computer error " in the declared i nward for eign rna- nifest, rather have its own justification nestled on 1) ."good faith and lack of fraudulent intent" ; 2) ."has not heretofore been guilty of a li ke anomaly"; and 3) ." acted promptly in amending its mani fests" . Anent t he good faith r aised in the first , it rnay be necessary to repeat what this Court said in the case of Sea- Land Ser vice, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs , CTA Case No . 3529, February 29 , 198 4 involving the h~ rei n petitioner and what so plainly apply to the case at bar that , "Petitioner ' s proffered good f a ith and disclaimer to any knowledge of the undeclared items in the ~ onta in - er i zed c argo can no l onger be a prospect that c an easily be r econc iled with the intended i mperative.

Conveyed

and discharged were unmanifested cargoes f alling sharply 217

DECIS ION -

CTA CASE NO. 3583 - 4 - at odds with the caveat essentially addxessed and directly brought to bear upon the carriers, xequiring a manifest of a true and accurate descr iption of all the cargo: And , ' doing business in the Phil i ppines , it behooves the master or owner of a vessel to abide by our customs laws and r egulations and to ignore them is nothing short of care- l essnes s and incompetence .• (Delgado Shipping Agencies, Inc . v. Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case No. 2685 , Feb- ruary 15, 1977, Cer tiorari denied, G. R .L~6 262 , July 6, 1977; c ited in Commissioner of Customs v . CTA, 91 SCRA 263) ~ I n a ruling of similar i mport this Court said 'We can do no less but hold the herein petitioner account- able for such deviati on from the peremptory demands of the law, the proffer ed good faith as an encapsulating panacea in bashing the de linquency notwithstanding .

This

specie of irregularity was not propitious then, it cannot , now .

(Delgado Shippi ng Agency Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, CTA Case No . 3089, December 28, 1981)~" The second hardl y presents a gripping question . The cited Sea-Land Service , Inc. , case of c losely analogous facts and issues of the mold no differ en t from the instant case had herein petitioner repeating t he s ame eg r eg i ous blunder .

We reach t he same r uling, thus, "What we have in the case a t bar are vir t ual Pandora 's box of incriminat ing shipments the importation of which was found in porit ive breach of the governing statutory 218 - 5 - proscript ions.

Indeed , t here can be no f urther occasion to speculate upon how the peremptory demand t hat ' Every vessel from a foreign por t must have on board a complete manifest of al l her cargo ' (Section 1005 , ~~) '· which far from showing any mere r esemblance of an illusion , should be enforced, As ' The mandate of the law i s clear and we c annot settle fo l ess .

The law imposes the absolute obligation, unde r penalty for fail ure , upon every vesse l f rom a forei gn por t to have on 'board complete written or typewritten manifests of all her cargo signed by the master ' .

Where the law requires a manifest t o be kept or del i vered , it i s not complied with unless the man i fest is t rue and accurate • (U . S. v . SS I slas Fil ip inas, 28 Phil. 291 ; cited in Macondray & Co., Inc . v . Acting Commissioner of Customs , 62 SCRA 432) ~ Upon the r ecords before Us there is nothing to t ake the case out of the operati ve effects of the cited codal prov i sions as unde rstood and applied.• Third, the r ectification of the manifest by amendment could but be a sort of an anacoluthon for a venture petitioner was unprepared , so t o speak. "The statute makes no distinction nor doe s it est~blish an excepti on as regards the vessel's failure to supply the requisi t e man i fes t .

Subsequent amendment adds no i ns u- l ating rel i ef for ' even gran t ing a r guendo , that the amendment was appr oved and t herefore val i d i t does not 219

6 - in anyway relieve t he ve ssel from the lia bility hic h she already incurred prior to t he amendment . (Nacond ray & Co., Inc ., v . Acting Commissioner of Cus toms , 62 ~CRA 534 ; Comm i ssioner o f Cust oms v. C. T.A., 91 SCRA 264; cited in Sea-Land Service, Inc. v . Commi ssioner of Customs, C.T. A. Case No. 3529, February 29, 198 4 )~.

We do not th i n k a ny d i ffe r en t c onc l usion o ught be rea c hed in t he case at bar .

FOR ALL THE FOREGOING, the c i r c umstanc e s obta i n i ng compel Us to s ustain the responden t Commi s s ioner of Customs' decision .

The caveats are valid and e xp l ' c i t enough and are not meant to be considered passe ', as thus, t he petition is hereby di s missed wi t h c ost s again s t the petitioner .

• ROAQU I N

e J udge 220