! Republic of the Philippines' Court of Tax Appeals Guezon City Warner Barnes & Co., et al. vs. Commissioner of Customs

decision

of the Collector of Customs~ Port of Manila, dated October 25, 1982 impcJsing an administr-ative fine of P 10,000.00 against the vesse 1 M/S

11 JOHN

BA~::J:::E 11 for violation of Section 1005 in relation to Section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended. The essential facts are not in controversy. As related in the Commissioner of Customs: [_"' t' ·- ~ u - ( decision of respondent

DECISION --

- 2 - Records show that subject vessel M/S "JOHN BAI<I<E " arrived Manila on September 28, 1978, and discharged thereat cargoes including 6,000 cartons of mc"i\tch splints.

In the Inward Foreign Manifest submitted by the master, the name of the consignee was inaccurate 1 y - -'dec 1 a red as "Liang Chung Corporation" when i:he ac tua 1 and real consignee is the Philippine Match Co. As it is necessitated that an amendment before the Import Entry filed could be processed, one was "filed and approved by the Bureau of Custom~.

However, as a consequence of the filing of the said inaccurate mani "fest, an administrative action was commenced against the vessel MIS "JOHN BAI<I<E'. During the hearing, the Prose~ution contended that the s ubject. vessel violated Section 1005 in n :! 1 a t..ion to Section 2521-· of the Tariff and Customs Code of 1978. An amended Inward Foreign Manifest (Exhibit "A") was submitted to support its contention.

Also submitted was the letter of the Law Division ( E~:h.i bit "B") addressed to the respondent (¹.ow petitioner herein) requiring the .. 8

3 latter to explain in writing why no administrative fine should be imposed on the vessel for violation of the law.

On the other hand, the respondent (petitioner herein) , through counsel' claimed that the declaration in the manifest was a harmless one committed in good faith without intent to defraud the Government of its lawful revenue.

The respondent (petitioner- herein) e~:pl ained that the shipment or-iginated from ' Tsingtao, China, and loaded on boar-d S/S "MISTRUNG", and later tr-anshipped from Hongkong to Manila on boar-d t1/S - ..

"JOHN BAn<E" under- Bi 11 of Lading No.

T-354 with the dec 1 a r-ation in the Inward For-eign Manifest of Liang Chung Cor-por-ation, Ltd., as consignee. Based on the foregoing facts, the Collector of Customs, Port o ·f Manila, found the subject vessel r-epresented by r-espondent (now petitioner in this appeal) to be administratively liable and imposed an administrative fine of P10,000.00 for violation of Section 1005 in relation to Se~tion 2521 of the Tar-iff and Customs Code, as amended.

- 4 - On appeal, respondent Commissioner of Customs, in his decision dated August 21, 1985, affirmed iR t,{t.. :t~~~- the collector's decision. Hence the present recourse.

The basic iss\.te at bar is whether the vessel or her master is liable for the fine for violation of Section 1005, in re 1 at ion to Section 2521, of the Tariff and Customs Code as amended, pertinent provisions of which read: SEC. 1005.

t! .~.oJ, ... fg_~_t_ _______ BJ?.9.!:-J!.r..~9 ............. Q.f .

\:'.§ .~_§.§J . ______ :tr..-.9_(!L .. .F.:Qr.gJ_g.o__ ... .P..9.r.::.! .• - Every ve sse 1 from a foreign port must have on board a complete manifest of all her ~~rgo. All of the cargo intended to be landed at a port in the Phi 1 ippines must be described in separate ~anifests for each port of ca 11 therein • .. : Each manifest sha 11 inc 1 ude the port of departure and the port of delivery with the marks, number-s, quantity and descriptioh of the packages and the names of the consignees thereof.

x >:

>t.

XXX XXX XXX SEC. 2521.

E.~i..l.!,.Jr..~ .. --··----.!.9 __________ ~'=\.P.Pl.~ f.Le._m.l.i_~!.Jg __ ti~D...!_f_e. . .§...t§. • - I f any ves se 1 or aircraft enters or departs from a port of entry without submitting the proper manii · ' ~>ts to the customs authorities~ or shall enter or depart conveying unmanifested cargo other than as stated in the ne>:t proceeding section hereof~ such vessel or aircraft shall be fined in a sum 5f the

- 5 - not less than ten thousand (P10,000.00) pesos but not exceeding thirty thousand (P30,000.00) pesos.

Under Section 1005 o·f the Tariff and Customs Code, it is an imperative obligation of every vessel from a foreign po~t to have on board a complete manifest of all her cargo, which shall include the port of departure and the port of delivery with the marks, ·numbers, quantity and description of the packages and the names of the consignees the~eof, and to this mandatory requirement no exception is provided by law. The recognition of any attempt to read into the statute - ·.:.

any e:·(ception would be contrary to the pervasive spir· i t as well as the clea.r language of the statute.

(Smith, Bell 8t. Co. (Phil.) Inc. vs. Comm. o ·f Customs, CTA Cases Nos .

.1728 St.

.1921, July 22, 1969; Mac:ondray St. Co., Inc. vs. Comm. of Customs, CTA Case No.

.1930, December 27, .1969, certiorari denied in G.R. No. L-3.1599, Feb. 10, 1970; Campania General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs.

Comm.

of Customs, CTA Case No.

2143, June 30, 1972;

Macondray 8t.

Co., Inc. vs.

Comm.

of Customs, CTA Case No.

2079, Sept. 29, .1972;

Macondray & Co. , '5[1

DECISION ·-

- 6 - Inc. vs. Comm. of Customs, CTA Ca~~ No. 2067, Oct.

6, 1972;

Mac6ndray & Co., Inc.

vs . .

Comm.

of Customs, CTA Case No.

2073, Nov.

25, 1972;

Macondray J!~ Co., Inc. vs.

Comm.

of Customs, CTA Case No. 2203, June 15, 1973; Macondray & Co., Inc. vs. Comm. of Customs, CTA Case No. 2082, Sept. 17, 1974; Macon .lray J!~ Co., Inc. vs. Customs, CTA Case No. 2484, Jan. 19, 1976; Macondray & Co., Inc. vs. Comm. of Customs, CTA Case No. 2472, Nov. 28, 1977; Macondray J!~ Co. , Inc. vs.

Comm.

of Customs, CTA Case No. 2503, July 31, 1978J Compania General de Tabacos de ''=ilipinas vs. Comm. of Int. Rev., CTA Case No. 2559, Dec. 28, 1979.) ~ Thus the defenses of clerical error, good faith and lack of fraudulent intent in cases of t.hi s na tun:?, as well as the defense that an amendment. to the vessel's mani ·fest was allowed by the Bureau of Customs, ar·e unavai 1 ing and fu ti 1 e under said provisions of Sections 1005 and 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code, and will neither - .:.

exculpate nor relieve the offending vessel from the penalty of fine.

(Macondray & Co., Inc. vs. Comm. of Customs, CTA Case No.

1930, Dec.

27, 1969,

- 7 - cert.iorar i denied in G. R.

No.

L-31599, Feb.

10, 1970; Everett Steamship Corp. vs. Comm. of Customs, CTA Case No.

1968~ August 25, 1971, certiorari denied in G.R. No. L-34146, Oct. 7, 1971; Macondray 81.

Co., Inc. vs.

Comm.

df Customs, CTA Case No.

2079, Sept. 29, 1972;

Macondray 81.

Co., Inc. vs.

Comm. of Customs, CTA Case No. 2067, Oct. 6, 1972; Campania General de Tabaco~ de Filipinas vs. Comm. of Customs, CTA Case No.

1939, Feb.

26, 1971, certiorari denied in G. R. No.

L- 33386, Apr i 1 14, 1971; Macondray

81. Co., Inc. vs. Comm. of Customs, CTA Case No. 19L1, April 20, 1970.) The rationale of such doctrine, which has been repeated 1 y cited by - .:.

this Court, was enunciated in U.S. vs. The Steamcship "Rubi", 32 Phil. 228, thus: The evident intent and object of these requirements for the submission of manifests by all vessels from foreign ports is to impose upon the owners and officers of such vessels an imperative obligation to submit 1 ists of the entire lading of the ship in the prescribed form, . in order to facilitate the labors of the Customs and immigration officers, and to defeat any attempt. to make use of such vesse 1 s to secure the un 1 awf1-1 1 en try of per·sons or things :into the country. No exemptidn is made in the statute, and the recognition of any attempt . to read an exception into the

- 8 - (See also Ame~ican Steamship Agencies, Inc. vs.

Comm.

of Customs, CTA Case No.

1851, May 3, 1977; N & E Shipping Agency vs. Comm. of Customs, CTA Case No. 2629, Oct. 30, 1978; Campania Gene~al de Tabacos de Filipinas vs.

Comm.

of Customs, CTA Case No. 2559, Dec. 28, 1979; F . E. Zuellig (M) In c .

vs.

The Comm.

of Customs, CTA Case No.

35~2, Oct. 1S, 1984.) We find no valid and cogent ~eason to modify o~ depart f~om the conclusion ~eached in the above- c i tr""d c: a s es, and the same should ~esolve the simi.l a~ pr·ob-1./em now b~ought befo~e LIS in this appea 1.

Acco~dingly, the imposition of an administ~ative fine of Pl.O,OOO.OO against the vessel M/S "JOHN BAI<~ KE", ~ep~esented he~e by petitioner· Wa~ne~ Bar·nes I!~ Co., Inc., as its ship age nt, is sustained.

WHEREFORE, the Cou~t he~eby denies the petition fo~ ~ e view fo~ lack of me~it and affirms the decision appealed f~om, at petitione~ · s costs.

DECISION --

- 9 - ·wE CONCUR:

..

z~ Judge C E R T I F I C A T I 0 N I hereby certify that this decision was reached after due consulta~ion among the members of the Court of Tax Appeals in accordance with Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution. AMANTE ILLER Presidi g Judge Court of Tax Appeals