CTA Case No. 3069 (Decision)

r<l'. f'UBUC Of �1 !H: Pilll..IPPiN~!.l COURT OF Tl!jJ( APP.EA~..S c n v on~ro. /DELGADO SHIPPING AGENCIES , INC., in its capacity as agent of ~D"''i' t b �~ ss "EURYBATES II, Petitioner, - versus - C.'l'.A. CASE NO. ~ COMMISSIONER OF CUS'l'O.tvlS, Respondent. X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X DEC I S I 0 N Th i s is an appeal from re~pondent Commissioner of Customs ' decision in Customs Case No. 75-74 dated January 24, 1980 , wh ich affirmed the Collector of Manila's decision in Customs Administrative Cdse No. V-356/70 dated January 28, 1975, imposing en -dmini s t r a tive fine of Forty Three Thousand Eight Hundr ed Fifty Two (P43,852.00) Pesos on petitioner SS"EURYBATES" and/or its local agen t , Delgado Shipping Agencies, Inc., for the violation of Section 2523 of the Tariff and Customs Code, as amended, reading as fol l ows: "Sec. 2523. Discrepancy Between Actual and Declared We i ght of Manife s ted Cargo.- If the gross weight of any articles or package descri bed in t he manifest exceeds by more than twenty (20) per centum the gross weig h t as decl~red in the manifest or bill of lading thereof, and the Collector shall be of the opinion that such discr e panc y was due to the c a rel e ~ s ness or inc om- petency of the master or pilot in -l--~~ �) ( �)' j

- DECISION - CTA CASE NO 3089 �- 2 - command , owner or employee of the vessel or aircraft, a fine of not more tha n fif tee n (15) per c entum of the value of the package or a ! ticle in respect t o which the deficiency exists, may be imposed ,� upon the importing vessel or air- craf t." It appears that o n November 13, 1969, the above-named ve s sel arriv ed at the Port of Man i la conveying and dischar g ing t hereat sixty-two (6 2) bales of assorted t e xt i l e remnants consigned to Juan Ligan and man ifes t ed i n the cove ring Bi ll of Lading No. 100 a gross weight of only 36,581 lbs. but a s found after examinat i on and apprai s a J t h e ac tual gro s s weight wa s 85,083 lbs . or a diacr epa ncy of 48,502 lbs. He n c e , the .. .,... ..".'. g r oss weight of the merchandise exceede d by :..ore t han 132% the declare d weight. vis-a-\:i,s ~ 2 0 ~ penal t y-free e xces s allowed by statute . Thus, the imposition o f an equivalent fine o f P43 , 852 on the value of the merchandise i n respect to wh i ch the defic ie ncy ex i sts, aga i nst the erring vesse l of peti tioner . In disputing t he legality of the admi- nis t rative f ine, petitioner professes good faith by its r eliance on the fin a li t y of the shipper's own declaration and the absence of negligence. We cannot yield asse nt to petitioner's position .

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3089 - 3- The administrative fine imposed by the respondent in pursuant to Section 2523, supra, appears premised upon the valid findings that (l) the actual gross weight exceed by more than 20% the d e clare d gross weight and (2) the dis- c r epancy is due to carelessness or incompetency of the master, owner o r employee of the v2ssel. A discrepancy of more than 132% of the declared weight cou l d not be a mere rdndom quirk bu t one of posi t ive breach unduly str ain- ing the a l lowable latitude of 20%. And thi s particu lar i s s ue has been already decided by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Court of Tax Appeals and Delgado Shipping Agencies, Inc., in its capacity as age n t of SS "EURYBATES" {G.R. No. L-49462, June 29, 197 9 ) which in all material respects precisely like the case under �.consideration, holding, inter a lia, that a gross underdeclaration "constitutes p e r s~ evidence of willful negligence or gross incompetence on t he part of the vessel's master." An~ as further stressed, "The vessel's master, o ~�mer or employees a re duty bound under the cited codal sec t1on under pain of the penalty of fine therein provided to check and v e rify the correct weight of the car go

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3089 - 4- or shipment so as to p r ~vent a misdeclaration or underdeclaratio n of vJeight. The vessel mater's discharge of such obl i gation imposed by law to properly determine and verify the weight of cargos carried by it is certainly pertinent to and im- portant for the proper assPssment of the collect- ible customs d uties and ta,�es, and is not a burdensome task in the present era of containerized cargos." The aforesaid view had been expressed with explicit distinctness in previous findings on r epeated similar egregious blunders and had been carried into adjudications in a number of cases by this Court, thus, 11 It is hardly necessary to add that under Section 2523 of the Tariff and Customs Code, the declaration, ascertainment or verification of the correct weight of the cargo at the port of loading is the duty or obligation of the master, pilot, owner , officer or employee of the vessel. If he omits or disregards this duty and a punishable discrepancy between the declared weight and actual weight of t he cargo exists, the inevitable conclusion is that he is negligent or careless. {Delgado Shipping Agencie~ Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, C . T.A. Cas e No. 2685, February 15, 1977; Macondray & Company, I nc.

DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 3089 - 5- v . Co mmis sio n er of Cu sto ms, C . T .A. Case No. 2 7 41 , Febru a r y 3, 197 7; Macondray & co. , Inc. v. Com- mi ssione r of Customs, C.T . A. Case No. 2656 , J anua ry 21, 1977 and cases c i t e d therein. ) Similarly , i f in the exercise or performance of t his du t~ he i s neg ligent or c arele s s resul t - ing in th e comm i ssion o f exc e ss i v e discr e panc y in the weig ht of the ship's car go penalized under t he l aw , c a reles s ness or i ncompetence is, none- thele s s, impu t able to h i m. " (I n t ernational Harvest e r Ma c leod, I nc . v . Comm i aioner o f Customs, C . T. A. Ca se No . 2698 , Novembe r 25 , 1 977. ) We can d o no l~s s bu t hold t h e here i n p e titioner acc ou n t- able f o r s uch dev i a t ion from the pe remptory demands of t he law, t h pr offered good f a ith a s a n encap- sulating anacea i n bashing the del i riquency notwithsta nr :.ng . This specie o f irr eg ul ar i t~ wa s not propit iou s then, i t cannot, n ow . And, va $ to p eti tio ne r's i ns i stence o f � pr �c�tvr= on th e p art o f r e spo nden t of th e n eg lJ.. g e nc e or carele ss ness of the master , own er o r e mp l o ; e e of the ves se l , su ff i c e it to say , add it ionally, that thi s Cour t has a l ready une quivocably ruled ~ hat unde r Sec t:on 25 2 3 o r: t e Cod e, t he asc e r t- ainmen t o r v er i f i cat i o n J f the we igh t of the t-: .:) 'I

DECISION - CTA CASE NO . 3089 -6 - ship's cargo at the port of loading is the duty or obligation of the master , pilot , owner or employee of the vessel. Failing thus, the con- elusion seems inevitable that there is an unexcusable laxity o n the part o~ the master or owner in exercising the ordinary care and prudence in the commission of excessive dis- crepancy in the weight of the ship 's cargo penalized under the law . Doing business in the Philippi nes , it behooves the master or owner of t he vessel to abide by our customs laws and regulat ions a nd to igno re t hem i s nothing sho r t of gross care lessness or incompetence." (Delgado Shipping Agencies, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, C.T.A. Case No. 2685, Febr uary 15, 1977, certior ari denied, G.R. No. L-46262 , July 6, 1977 ; cited in Commissioner of Customs v . Cou rt of Tax Appeals, et al., supr~.) If any t hi ng can go wron g it will, so it seems. The attempt to push such a gross discrep~n cy of 132% beyond the tolerable statutory limit of 20% ~ any penalty becomes illogic and negates "The clear purpose of the codal provision re- quiring vessels to declare the correct weight of the ir cargo is to curb smuggling due to such underdeclarations. Hence, imposing t he maximum

.. 'r .\ DECISION - CTA CASE NO. 308 9 - 7- fine on vessels which fa i l to comply with the obligation to declare the true weight o f their cargo promotes the qpirit and purpose of the law . " (Comm issioner of Customs v . Court of Tax Appea ls Dnd Delgado Shipping Agencies, Inc., as Agent of SS "EURYBATES n , 91 SCRA 2G2.) Que sera, ser a as it must, relief has to be denied peti - tioner. WHEREFO RE , petiti on is hereby d ismiss~d with costs. ~0 ORDERE D. Quezon City, Metro Manila, December 28, 1981. WE CONCUR: ~~~~/; AMANTE IF ILLER ' Presid ii}_f Judge ~J� '~' � ., )