CTA Case No. 2836 (Decision)

&IPU~LT(. Of' 1 HI! i'ltJLI1'!"t", � COURT ,OF TA,X A.?PE.~L! C'n !t:tt:l,;- r.t"M' EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., Pet.i t .ioner, - ver:sus - C.T.A. CASE NO. 2836 THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, Respon<i:lcen t .� X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X. DE C I S I 0 N As to whether: or. not. there. was a violat.ion of Harbor. Regulat.ions and Cust:oms Administ.r:ative Order. (CAO) .No. 2-71 in relation to Sec:tion 25.18 of the Tar:if:f and Customs Code, is. tr:he simple issue in this. cas.e. The: above-me.n t.ione:d~ Regula "!dons and Order: dat.e'd June: 3, 1971 g;over:n the "Carriage, Dischar:g;ing and/or. Loading of Explosive.s, Inf.lammable.s and other Danger.ous Cargoes and Radioac.t.ive Mat:er.ials.'' on boar:di. ve.ssels and Sect.ion 25.18 pr:escr.ibes the admi- nist.r.at.ive sanctions, thus, "Unlad,ing of Car.go at. any Proper: Time. or: Place After: Ar.r:ival. - _Any ve:s- se.l or. aircraft., which after arrival. at. her. port~ of destinat.ion in the. Philippines, dis.c.harg,es cargo at. any t.ime or. place other: than that. desig;- na ted by the Collector: shall be fined in a sum of not. exceeding, te.n thousand pe.sos unless the unlading was rendered nec:essar.y by st.r:ess of weather., acci- dent. or: other. necessity; and if due: to

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2836 - 2- necessity, the: subse~quent. appr~ oval of the: pJCoper Collec.tor: must. be: obtained." The mater:ial facts ar~e: r:elat.ively simple. On July 22, 197 2, the SS "Eas:ter.n Come't ." a vessel owne:d and oper.ated by t-he. her:ein pet.it:.ioner: , arrived at. t-he Por:t . of Manila, having, fo.1r: its ca.1cgo 6,6.67 bags of "ammonium ni tr.at::.e" un~le:r~ covering B/L No. KMA-25 consigned to the. Philippine� Explosives Corporat:ion. Shipside Permit:. No . 2312 granted the consignee's broker, Lu z,on Br.oker:age Corpor:a t:.ion, allowed t:he unlading, of the car.g;o unto light.e:rs at. the explosives anchor:ag;e consistent with the: reg;ulat.ions and or.der�. Not.wi thstanding pe.t:.i t .ion er. thr:oug;h i t .s opera t .ions ass.istant. had yet to push through an assignment of a berth at. the pie.r.s for. the SS "Eas tern Come.t" for the. dischar:g,e of the same: ca][:go "withou t. indicating t.he.r.ein the presence of e.xplosi ves on board for Manila dischar:g;e x x x cont][:ary to the provisions of CAO No. 2-71. x x x. withholding, such informat.ion may have be.en pur.posely done: to secure a pie:t: be:rth due 1i::o the heavy ar.rival of ships. By so doing� she was able t:�o misled. the Ber:thing Officer who assig.ned her a berth at. Pier~ 9 whe.r.e despi t:-.e a ship- side permit. having, be.en issued for this cargp the: ship's checker allowed this car.go t:.o be discharged to the pier in v'iolat.ion of said CAO No. 2-71 and

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2836 - 3- thus e.ndanger.ing, the safet.y of -the pier and the people therein." (Head, Port Operations Services ' Me.mor.andum to the Collector. of Customs) �. Appar- ent.ly the situat:.:ion had taken a t .icklin9 ur:genc:y of cr.i t .ical concern prompt.ing, the consignee's broker. to request: " that:. the. above car~go be. trans- ferr.ecL to the consi~Jnee ' s safe magazines at Limay, Bataan " ; likewise, pre.cipi-tat.ing an appropriate administrative charge filed by the Collector of Customs against:. the err.ing vessel for violation of the Harbor Reg,ulat.ions and Customs Administrative Order No. 2-71, and meting, out a ~10 ,0 00.00 fine as a consequence thereof, pur~ suant:. to Sect.ion 2518 of the Tariff and Customs Code 1 supra (Administrative Case No. V-716/72 da�fi::ed June 9, 1976.) �. On appeal, the~ r.espondent. Commissioner. of Cus-toms affirmed t .he same (Customs Case No. 76-37 dated~ August. 3-1, 1976) �. Hence 1 t.his pet.i t .ion. Towar.ds adding, up t:o j ust.if.ication, pet.i t.ioner~ avers that 1) the discharge of the cargo in ques- tion was duly covered by a ber~ thing permit. under the applicable Harbor. regulat.ions and Customs Admi- nist.r:at.ive Order; 2) _t .he Customs author.it.ies were furnished a copy thereof and properly not.ifie.d be- f :or:e the piers ide discharg,e of the car.g_o; and. 3) the cargo was not. inflammable or. ex.plosi ve and t.he

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2836 - 4. - consignee 1 s representative was responsible for. the: discharg,e.� The basic quest.ion is nothing more than the effect.ive application of the per.t.inent. provisions of. the regulation and order andl the corresponding administ-rat-ive s anction as the same ar.e broug;ht: to bear. upon the circumstances of the case before us. The cargo of "ammonium nit-rate" is not such a pr.et:ty innocent. and innocuous stuff but. of known and obvious at:tr.ibute, i.e., an explosive. It. is no piece of idle ceremony that. the said car:gp must come within the purview of the reg,ulat�.ion/or:der which "shall be discharg.ed unto light-ers at the explosives an- choragle, regardless of whether the same are through car:g,o or dest.ined for Manila, before the carrying vessel shall be allowed to dock alongside the pier:." Such a caveat remain~ prescribed and continues enforced. Pet.i tioner having, come within its scope must prove compliance with the terms peremptorily requh::ed thereby. The circumstances obtaining, however, reduced the duly issued permit. into a note of ineffectuality. Peti t .ioner 1 s vessel effecit.ed a pierside discharge "despite a shipside permit having, been issued for: this cargo t-he ship 1 s checker allowed. this cargo to be discharged t-o the pier in violation of the said CAO No. 2-71 and thus endangering

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 2836 - _5 - the safety o:f the pier: and the people the:rein. 11 It. was no cosmet:-.ic e.f.for:t nor. idle gesture for con- signee ' s broker: to have the car:go t .r:ansf.erred after. having, conce<ledly admitted that 11 this cargo is ex.plo- sive and over exposure to the elements is dang,er::ous and immediate t-ransfer to a safe magazine for: explo- sives is necessary. 11 Pet.i t .ioner substi t:�uted such a quirk of an expediency which falls short of measur- ing, up t:u the compelling impor.t and force of the rule.� On the principle that-. leg,al rig,ht.s must. be enfor-ced according to legal rules, pet.i tioner. cannot. be en- t .i t .led to a relief much less deser.ve any ext.ende:d at.t:ention but::. must. be held account::able and liable for:: a well founded breach. WHEREFORE, the pet.i t .ion is her.e.by dismissed wi t:.h cost.s against. pet.i -tdoner.. SO ORDERED. Quez;on City, Met.r.o Manila, Jun~ 15, 1983. Associate Judge WE CONCUR: ~_.ol;~~ /~ � ROAQUIN Judge