CTA Case No. 2072 (Decision)

!\EPUBLIC OF TBE PHILIPPI El COURT -.OF TAX APPE.A. Ql_lEZON CITY MACO~BAY & COMPANY, INC., C.T.A. CASE NO. 2072 in its capacity as agent of the MS "TROUBADOUR11 , Petitioner, I versus COMNISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respondent. X- - ~ - - - - ~ - - � X DECISION This is an appeal from the decision of re- spondent dated February 4, 1970, affirming that of the Collector of Customs of V~ila which imposed an administrative fine of i2,000 .00 on the vessel MS "Troubadour" for carrying unmanifested cargo in violation of Section 1005 1n relation to Section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code. It appears that petitioner is a ship agent of the vessel MS "Troubador" With reg;i.stry No. 2022 which arrived at the port of Manila on November 19, 1967, carrying among others 19 cartons of truck parts marked Carter 67/56 Manila. The cargo is covered by Bill of LadiDg No. 35, but the Customs authorities discovered that the number of cartons reflected in the manifest is 42, while the actual cargo that arrived were 19 cartons. Consequently, the Collector of Customs of Manila instituted administrative proceedings against

.I DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2072 2 the aforesaid vessel for carrying cargo on board without a completea.and accurate manifest in viola- tion of Section 10f)5, in relation to Section �2521, or the Tariff and Customs Code. Petitioner contends that the discrepancy in . the manifest was due to a clerical error done in good faith which should be 19 cartons only, instead of 1t2 cartons as appearing in the manifest. The manifest was, however, amended to conform with the cargo that was actually shipped, which amendment was allowed by respondent. This discrepancy was brought about because the 23 cartons (Truck Parts Carter 6?/56 Manila) were loaded on board the ves- sel MS ''Fernland" that arrived on November 29, 196? while the balance of 19 cartons was brought by the aforesaid vessel MS "Troubadour" which arrived in Manila on November 19, 196? ahead or the vessel MS 11Fernland". After due hearing, the Collector of Customs rendered his decision holding that the aforesaid vessel MS 11Troubadourtt violated Section 1005 of the Tariff and Customs Code and imposed a fine of P2,000.00 against petitioner herein, which decision, I on appeal to the Commissioner of Customs, was af- firmed on February 4, 19?0. On February 28, 1970, the instant appeal was instituted.

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2072 3 The only issue to be resolved in this case is whether or not the imposition of the administra- tive fine of P2,000 . 00 against petitioner is in accordance with law. We do not subscribe to petitioner's theory . Section 1005 of the Tariff and Customs Code clear- 11 requires that the master of the vessel arriving from a foreign port must have on board a complete and accurate manifest . In a previous case appealed to this Court by herein �petitioner (Macondray & Co . , Inc. v . Com- missioner of Customs , C. T. A. Case No . 2090, Decem- ber 16, 1971) involving a similar issue, it was held: ttpetitioner further asserts that 'the provision of the law on amendment is designed to protect the master, agent or consignee from the error, mistake or discrepancy com- mitted by him im the preparation of the original manifest and that it is unfair and uncalled for to conclude, as the respondent held in this case, that the right to amend the manifest is for the principal purpose or pro- tecting itmocent importers . ' Whether the purpose of the law in permitting amendmen~ of a vessel's manifest is to protect the master, agent or consignee of the vessel! or the importer of the goods, s to our mind of slight significance . Under Section 2521 of the Tariff and Cus- toms Code, no relief from liability for the fine is granted where an amendment of the manifest is allowed."

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2072 4 I On the basis of the doctrine laid down in the above cited case, we find no sufficient reason to deviate from the foregoing pronouncement. However, we are of the opinion that the fine imposed in the amount of ~2,000.00 is exorbitant and believe that P1,000 . 00 is sufficient . WHEREFORE, the appealed decision of respondent Commissioner of Customs is hereby modified by re- ducing the fine from P2,000. oo to P1,000 . oo, which petitioner is hereby ordered to pay to the Bureau of Customs, Manila, within thirty (30) days from the date this decision becomes final. SO ORDERED . Quezon City, June 30, 1972. ~~ � ROMAN M. UMALI ~ Presiding Judge I