CTA Case No. 2559 (Decision)

Rl':Pl!I\I.IC OF �nm Pll!!.ll'rlNll!i COURT 0? T.',.:{ APPEALS Qti li.Zo;�~ CITY COMPAN I A GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, Petitioner, - versus - C.T . A. CASE NO. 2559 'rHE COMLIHSSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - X DE C I S I 0 N This appeal i s taken by pe titioner Campania General de Tabacos de Filipinas from the decision of respo ndent Commiss i o n e r of Customs dated September 20 , 1973 (in Customs Case No. 73 - 28) which affirmed the decision of the Collector of Customs of the Port of Manila dated Ma rch 6, 1973, imposi ng an adminis- trative fine upo n each of the fol l owing vessels, in t heir respective administrative case, t o wit : Il 1,000 . 00 - S/S " Lica Maers k " - Adminis tr ative Cas e No . V-6 00 -71 1, 000 . 00 - S/S "Cecilie Maersk" - Adminis- trative Case No. V-601-71 1,000.00 - "Nicoline Maersk" - Administrative Case No. V-60 2-71 1, 00 0.00 - "Lexa Maersk" - Adminis t rative Case No. V-6 0 3-71 1,000.00 - "Luna Maersk " - Adm i nistrative Cas e No . V-604-71 1 , 000 . 00 - "Tobias Haersk" - Administrative Case No. V- 605 -71 335

DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 2559 - 2- P 1 , 000 . 00 - "Luna Maersk" - Administrative Case No . V-614-71 for violation of Section 1005, in r elation to Section 2521 , of the Tariff and Customs Code . There is no dispute as to the material facts a s borne out by the records of the Bureau of Customs . On diffe r ent dates in 1969, 1970 and 197 1 , the vessels in ques tion , which are all owned and operated by the Haersk Line, a company engage d in inter-ocean shipping , and represented in the Phil ippines by their local ship agent, petitioner Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas, ar r ived separately at the Port of Manila and discharg ed thereat various cargoes with- out being l i sted in their respective manifest , thus : S/S " Lica Maersk " - Registry No. 945 Date of Arrival - May 29 , 1970 Cargo - 8 drums of Sodium Xanthate but only 3 dr ums were listed in the Inward Foreign Manifest. S/S "Ceci l ie Maersk " - Re g istry No. 1268 Date of Arrival - October 15 , 1970 Unmanifested cargo - 4 drums i ndustrial essential oil. S/S "Nicoline Maersk" - Registry No. 1513 Date of Arrival - August 28, 1970 Unmanifested cargo 2 boxes personal effects consigned to Miss Beatriz Fabaya of Talisay, Cebu . S/S "Lexa Maersk" - Registry No . 165 Date of Ar rival - January 25 , 1969 Unman i fes ted cargo 80 drums ci tric acid. S/S "Luna Haersk " - Regi s t r y No. 587 Date of Arrival - March 27, 1969 Unma n ifested cargo - 11 packages recording.

DECI SION - CTA C ASE NO . 255 9 - 3- S/S "Tobias Maersk" - Registry No . 978 Date of Arrival - June 20, 1970 Unmanifested cargo - 5 cases of truck parts. S/S "Luna Maersk " -Regis try No. 255 Date of Arr ival - March, 1971 Unmani fested cargo - 20 cartons of truck replacement parts. After each incident, an amendment to the manifest of the ves se l concerned was filed by the ship agen t , Campania General de Ta bacos de F ilipinas, but the Bureau of Custpms approved each amendment with a notation: "without prejudice to an administrative action against the vessel." Consequen t ly , in the middle of 1971, the Bu reau of Customs instituted administrative proceedings against the vessels , respect ively, to wit: Administrative Case No . V-600-71 S/S "Lica Maersk "; Administrative Case No . V- 601 - 71 S/S "Cecilie Maersk"; Administrative Case No. V- 602-71 "Nicoline Maersk"; Adminis tr ative Case No . V- 603 - 71 "Lexa Maersk "; Admin i strative Case No . V- 604 - 71 S/S "Luna Maersk "; Administrative Case No . V-605 - 71 S/ S "Tobias Maersk" ; Administrative Case No . V-614 - 71 -- "Luna Maersk ": for violation of Section 1005, i n relation to Sect i on 2521, of the Tariff and Customs Code. The administrative cases aforesaid were consolidated and jo i n t ly heard on August 31 , 1971, dur i ng which, petitioner Campan ia General de Tabacos de Filipinas, 337

- -- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - . . - -� �-~...,, ww,_.,,-. �"""' DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2559 - 4- representing the vesse ls as respondent , offered the following stipulation of facts which was granted with- o ut objection on the part of counsel for the Bureau of Customs: " .l. That the r.1aersk Line is a shipping company that operates vessels to and from Manila to the ports of the United States; 2. That the respondent company, Campania General de Tabacos de Filipinas is the Phi lippine Agent of the Maersk Line; 3. That Mr . Fiancisco de Guzman who is now present befo re the Honorable Hea ri ng Officer is an employee of the Campania General de Tabacos de Filipinas in its Shipping Departmen t, who among other things is familiar with the mailing of the corre s pondence and the receipt thereof; 4 . That more particularly in Administrative Case No . V-60 0-71 , we submit that the error herein, the figure 3 was typed in lieu of the f igure 8 is a clerical e rror and that it is un de rstandable in v i ew of the fact tha t t h e ordinary manifest easily contains over fifty (50) pages with many hundred items, and t hat one clerical error in such a long document can be considered as an honest clerical mi stake; 5 . In cases 601- 602 we submit that if Mr. de Guzman testify, he would testify that the items referred to in these cases were not included in the manifest because the original manifest sent from New Yo rk to Manila was delayed in the mail; 6 . In proof of the f o r e go i ng, respondent is willing , if the Hearing Of f icer so wishes, to submit xerox copies of the manifest in both these cases showing the date of receipt; 7 . In cases 603-604, we incorporate by reference the deposition a l ready submitted to this Honorabl e Office in Administrati v e Case No . 476 , a copy of which we will submit to this Office should this Office so desire ; 338

DEC I SION - CTA CASE NO. 25 5 9 - 5- 8 . The cr oss loading in both cases was due to the fact that there was confusion caused by the Pier strike that raged in New Yor k f r om the l ast month of 1968 to the first month of 1969; the evidence i n que st ion has already been submitted to this Honor able Office in a previous case ; 9. In cases 605 and 614 , we submit that the Maersk Line possesses and operates a pier in New York, where only its vessels dock ~nd that i ts vessels dock there in numbe r s so that often t imes cargoe s intended f or one (1) vessel are loaded abo ard another vessel due to the usual prevailing confusion in any pier and without thought of fraud so tha t items may appear i n the manif~st of one vessel of the compa n y when the truth is they have been loaded aboard another ve ssel due to the confus i on in t he operation of the vessel x x x." (Par . 5 , Pe- tition fo r Review, pp. 2 & 3 C.T . A. records, Admit t ed par . 1 , responden t' s Answe r, p. 16, C. T . A. records ; also pp. 57, 60-62 ; Customs records & pp. 3-4 , Decision of Commissioner of Customs, pp . 111- 112 , Customs r ecords. ) On March 6, 19 73, the Col lecto r of Cus tom s of the Por t of Mani la rendered a consolidated decision in these administrative cases imposing a fi ne of Pl , OOO .OO upon each of the vessels for violation of Section 1005, in relat i on to Section 2521, of the Tariff and Customs Code . On appe a l by petitione r , said dec ision of the Collector was affirmed by the Comm i ss i one r of Cu stoms o n September 20, 1 97 3 . Henc e the present recourse . The issue to be resolve d is whether or not the vessels in question a re each liable for the penal ty of fine imposed by the Co llecto r of Customs o f the Port of Ma n ila and affirmed by the Commissi o ne r of 339

DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 2559 - 6- Customs for violation of Section 1005, in relation to Section 2521, of the Tariff and Customs Code, the pert inent provisions of which read as follows: SEC . 1 00 5 . - Man ifest Required of Vessel From Foreign Por t .- Every vessel from a foreign port mu st have on board a complete manifest of all her cargo. All of t he cargo intended to be landed at a port in the Philippines must be described in separate manifests for each port of call therein. Each manifest shall include the port of departu r e and the por t of delive r y with the marks, numbe rs , quantity and description of the packages and the names of the consignees thereof . x x x . If the vessel does not carry cargo or passengers the manifest must show that no cargo or passenge r, as t he case may be, is car ried from the port of departure to the port of de st ination in the Phil i ppines. A cargo manifest shal l in no case be changed or altered after entry of the vessel, except by means of an amendment by the master, consignee or agent thereof, under oath, and a ttached to the original man i fest; Provided, however, That after the invoice and/or entry covering an importat ion have been received and r ecorded i n the office of the appraiser, no amendmen t of the manifest shall be allowed, exc ept when it is obvious that a clerical e rror or a ny other discrepancy has been comm i tted i n the pr eparation of the manifest, wi thout any fraudulent intent, discovery of which could not have been made until after examination of the importation has been completed. SEC . 2521. Failure to Supply Requ is ite Manifests. - If any vesse l or aircraft ente r s o r departs from a por t of entry without sub- mitting the proper manifests to the customs a uthor ities, or shall enter or depart conve y- ing unman ifes ted cargo o ther than as stated in the next preceeding ~ection hereof, such vessel or aircraft shal~ be fined i n a sum no t exceed ing ten thousand pesos .

DECISI ON - CTA CAS E NO. 2559 - 7- The argumen ts and d e fe ns es raised by petitioner i n its petit ion for review and memorandum are the same as those rai s ed by i t i n the administrat i ve p roceed ings before the Bureau of Customs. Thus: In Admin ist rative Case No . V- 600-71 , th e f ailure or omission t o manifes t the cargo was due to typo - g r aphical or clerical error because inste ad of the LB7 f i g u re "8" (eight drums o f Sodium Xan thate ) the figure "3 " wa s typed in the car go manifest . In Administ rat ive Cases Nos. V-601-7 1 and V-6 02-7 1, the fa ilure to include i n the manifest of the articles in volved was due to the delay in mai ls of t he original manifest s e nt from New Yor k (po rt o f lo ading ) to Ma nila. In Admi nis trative Cas es Nos . V- 6 03-71 and V-604-71 , the f ai l ur e to manifest the cargoes involved was due to cross-loading because of the confusion brought about by a pier strike in the Port of New York . In Adminis trative Cases Nos. V-6 05 -71 and V-614-71, the f a i l ure to manifest the cargoes involved was also due either to cross-loading (or misshipment) beca use "the Maersk Line operates a pier in New Yo r k, where only its vesse l s dock and that its vess els dock t here in numbers so that often times c a rgoes intended f or one (1 ) vesse l a r e loaded aboard a nother vessel d ue to the usua l p revailing confusion in any pier and

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2559 - 8- without thought of fraud so that items may appear in the manifest of one vessel of the company when the truth is they have been loaded aboa r d another vessel due to the confusion i n the operation of the vessel." On the other hand, respondent Commissioner of Customs contends that the requirement of Sect i on 1005 of the Tariff and Customs Code that every vessel corni ng from a foreign port must have on board a complete manifest of all her cargo is an i mperative obligation of the vessel, and since the law does not provide for any excep tion, the vessels in question are sub ject to the penalty of fine under Section 2521 of t he Code . In support of his conten tion, respondent cites the case of Smith Bell and Co., Inc , vs. Commissioner of Customs , C .T. A. Cases Nos. 1728 & 1921, July 22, 1969 ~ The Court agrees with the stand of respondent. In previous cases involving similar or identical issues , this Court has consistently and repeatedly ruled that the law makes it an imperative obligation of every vessel corning from a foreign port to have on board a complete and proper manifest of all her cargo, and to this mandatory requirement no exception i s allowed by the statute . "Under Section 1005 of the Tariff and Customs Code , it is a n i mper ative obligation of every vessel from a f oreign port to have on board a complete manifest of all her car- go. No exception is mentioned i n the statute . 342

DECI S ION - CTA CASE NO. 2 5 5 9 - 9- Neither is there mention of any exception in Section 2521 o f said Cod e providi ng for a fine for vessels without proper manifests nor in Section 25 30 t hereof p r oviding the confiscation of unman ifested goods. The recog n ition by the Court o f any a ttempt to read into the statute any excep t ion , suc h as misshipment of goods, would be con t r a ry t o the pervasive spirit as wel l as the clea r lang uage of the aforesaid provisions. (S mith Bell , & Co. (Phil.) Inc . vs. Comm.of Customs, CTA Cases Nos. 1728 & 1921, July 22, 1969 ; Campania General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Comm. of Cus t oms, CTA Case No. 2143, June 30 , 1972; Ma condray & Co., Inc. vs. Comm.of Custom s , CTA Ca se No. 2067, Oct. 6, 1972; Macondray . & Co . , Inc. vs. Comm. of Customs, CTA Case No. 2082, Sept . 17, 1974; Macondray & Co., Inc . vs . Comm. of Customs, CTA Case No. 2484, Jan. 1, 197 6 ; Campania General de Tabacos de Filipinas v s . Comm. of Customs , CTA Case No. 2144 , Jan. 5, 197 6 .) (Underlining supplied.) The fact tha t the omission to manifest a cargo was d ue to cler ica l error or shortshipment committed in good faith or without fraudulent inten t or that the vessel 's manifest was amended or corrected with the app ro v a l of the Bure au of Cu s toms will not constitute a v a lid defense a nd relieve the vessel from liability . (See Macondray & Co ., In c . vs. Comm. of Customs, CTA Ca se No . 2079, Sep t . 29, 1972; Macondray & Co., Inc . vs. Comm . of Custom s , CTA Case No. 2067, Oct. 6, 1972; Everett S t eamship Corp. vs. Comm. cf Customs, CTA Case No. 1968, Aug. 25, 1971, Certiorari denied in G.R. No . L- 3 4146, Oct. 7, 1971; Campania General de Tabacos de Fi li pina s vs. Comm. of Cu stoms , CTA Case No. 1 939, Fe b. 26 , 1 97 1; Mac ond r ay & Co ., Inc. vs. Comm. of Cus t om s , CTA Ca se No. 1911, April 20, 1 97 0 ; Macondray '_) '� 3 ._) ".f.

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2559 - 10 - & Co ., Inc . vs. Comm. of Customs, CTA Case No . 1930, Dec . 27, 1969 , Certiorari denied in G.R. No. L-31599, Feb . 10 , 1970.) And as clearly and explicitly stated by the Supreme Court in the case of u.s. vs. The Steamship "Rub itt, 32 Phil . 223, the evident intent and object of these requirements for the submission of manifes ts by all vessels from foreign ports is to impose upon the owners and offic ers of such vesse ls an impera tive obligation to submit lists 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 vessels to secure the unlawful entry of persons or things i n to the country . No exemption is made in the statute, and the recognition of any attempt to read an excep- tion into the law could hardly fail to defeat the purpose of the enactment . (American Steamship Agencies, Inc., vs . Comm . of Customs , CTA Case No. 1851, May 3 , 197 7.) Consequently, t he fact that the failure or omission to manifest the vessel 's cargo was due to a clerical error (M acondray & Co., I nc . vs. Commissioner of Customs , C.T.A . Case No. 2503, July 31, 1978), cross- loading (Compania Gene ral de Tabacos de Filipinas vs . Commissioner of Customs , C.T .A . Case No. 2781, September 3-1 ~1

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2559 - 11 - 30, 1977 ) misshiprnent or delay in the mails of the original manifest sent from the port of loading {See Campa nia Ge neral de Ta ba cos de F ilipinas vs. Commis- sioner of Customs, C.T . A. Case No. 2742, September 16, 197 7), wil l not exculpate the vesse l from the penalty of fin e p r escribed under Section 2521 of the Tariff and Cu stom s Code. We find no plausible r ea son to depart fr om these rulings. WHEREFORE , the decision of responden t Commissioner of Customs is hereby affirmed in toto, with costs against petitione r . SO ORDERED. Qu ezon City , Me tro Man ila, December 28 , 1979. ~~ ~ ;2/ AMANTE ~~LE~~ Acting Pres i ding Judge I CONCUR: .J ~~~; g� ;RO:QUIN Assoc iate Judge 345