CTA Case No. 2073 (Decision)

~EPUBLIC OJ' T�E PBILU~PUfEI COURT .OF TAX APPB��LI �tUEZZM ClTI > MACONDRAY & CO., INC., in its capacity as agent of the SS 11 Tali Ping", Petitioner, � - versus - C.T .A. CASE NO. 2073 CCUMISSIONER OF CUSTCMS , Respondent. X. ~ - � - - - � - � - x:. D E C I s� I 0 N Petitioner seeks to reverse the decision of the Commissioner of Customs which affirmed that of the Collector of Customs of Manila imposing an ad- ministrative fine of �1,000.00 on SS "T"ai Pingn for carrying unm.anifested cargo in violation of Section 1005, in relation to S:ection 2521, of the Tariff & Customs Code. The records show that petitioner, a domestic corporation, is the ship agent in the Philippines of the vessel SS "Iai Ping". On or about October 20, 1966, the said vessel arrived in Manila con- veying, among others, ten (10) packages of Insulated Copper Wire and Copper Buss , Raintight Gutter and Fence Fabric. It appears, however, that at the time of the filing of the corresponding imp?rt entry, only eight (8) packages were listed in the Inward Foreign Cargo Manifest. On November 2, 1966, peti- tioner filed with the Bureau of Customs an amend- ment to the Inward F6reign Cargo Manifest so as to

DECISION w A CASE NO. 2073 � (2) show the correct number o This was duly approved by the Bure au of Customs without prejudice to an adminis- trative action against the vessel 1 After due hearing , the Collector of Customs render ed a decision .wherein the SS "Tai Ping" was fined in the amount of One Thou- sand Pesos (Pl , OOO. OO) for violation of Section 1005, in relation to Section 2521 , of the Tariff and Customs Code . Petitioner appealed the said decision to the Commissioner of Customs , who aff irmed the same . Hence , this appeal . The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether or not the said f i ne was legally impos~d under Sec- tion 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code , in relation to Section 1005 of the same Code . Petitioner claims that there can be no violation of Section 1005 of the Tariff & Customs Code because said section is not a penal or prohibitive statute since it imposes no penalty , for which reason res- pondent should have charged petitioner for violation of Section 2521 , in relation to Section 1005 , of the Tariff and Customs Code and not vice versa; that assuming arguendo that the charge for viola t ion of Section 1005 is proper , respondent failed to present proof of fr~ud on the part of petitioner in or~er to warrant violation of the aforesaid section ; that the evidence shows there was no such fraud ~ommitted by the petitioner inasmuch as an amendment to the cargo

-� DECISION - / CTA CASE NO. 2073 > (3) manifest .of the vesse�l was allowed; that the said amendment cured any defect in the manifest and cons- titutes a bar to the imposition of an administrative fine on the vessel ; that petitioner is merely an agent of the owner of the ve'ssel SS "Tai Ping" so that the proper party who should be held liable is the owner of the said vessel ; and , that the deficiency in the vessel ' s original manifest was adequately sup- plied by the bill of lading , consular invoice , supliers ' invoice and entry . Respondent , on the other hand , contends that Sec- tion 1005 of the .Tariff and Customs Code imposes a mandatory obligation on the part of the master of every 'Vessel engaged in fo�reign trade to have on board a com- plete manifest of all her cargo and that said section admits of no exception . We find respondent ' ~ decision in acpordance with - law. Section 1005 ,of the Tariff and' Customs Code im- poses on every vessel the imperative obligation to have on board a complete manifest of all her cargo . The said section admits of no exception. Failure to comply \\'it.h it is penalized by a fine of not more than f'lO, OOO.OO under Section 2521 of the same Code . It is thus clear that the law violated is Section 1005 while I the penalty provided for such violation is Section 2521. We do not subscribe to petitioner ' s theory that it should have been charged for violation of Section 2521 in relation to Section 1005. We find , therefore , . that the charge against the vessel is proper.

DECISION - CIA CASE NO. 2073 (4) Petitioner ' s contention that Sect ion 1005 re- quires the eleme nt of fraud before it can be made applicable is devoid of merit . The fraud mentioned ' therein refers to the non- allowance of 'amendment to a cargo manifest where there is fraud in the prepa- . ration of the manifest . In other words , whether or not an incomplete or erroneous manifest is amended , Section 1005 is violated upon failure to submit a correct or complete cargo manifest. 1ith regard to petitioner ' s claim that the amend- ment of the cargo manifest cured all its defect , we quote he~eunder our opinion in the cas e of Macondray & Co. , Inc . vs . Commissioner of Customs , C. I.A . Case No. 1930, Dec . 27 , 1969: Petitioner contends that a cler ical error was committed in good faith in the preparation of the manifest , and when res - pondent allowed t he amendment to the mani- fest pursuant to Section 1005 of the Ta- riff and Custbms Code , the same had the effect of curing or removing all the de- fects of the origihal manifests . In short , the kernel of petitioner ' s conten- tion is that the liability of the vessel for carr ying unmanifested cargo was wiped out by the amendment to the manifest. We are not at all impressed with this interpretation of t he law by peti- tioner. There is no dispute that the four (4) cartons of elec trical parts were not co- vered by the inward foreign manifest of M/S "Fernview' , as required by Section 1005 of the Tariff and Customs Code . To enable petitioner to take delivery of the entire shipment of six (6) cartons , Mr . De Asis, Manifest Clerk , Marine Entry Pro- cessing Division, Bureau of Customs , re- quired the amendment to the inward foreign

DECISION - CIA CASE NO. 2073 (5) manifest upon discovering that the num- ber of cartons of electrical parts de- clared in the entry covering . the dispu- ted s hipment was four (4 ) cartons more than what were declared in the original inward foreign manifest of the subject vessel . Although this amendment was al - lowed and approved by customs authori- ties , the same did not have the effect ~f obliterating the liabi lity of the vess el incurred previous to the amend- ment � . Section 1005 of the Tariff and Customs Code , supra , is so clear and expli- cit when it commands every vessel from a foreign port to have on board a complete . manifest of all her cargo. Non- observance of this imperative obligation subjects a vessel to the administrative penalty under Section 2521 of the same Code . The law makes no exception and any attempt to read one into the statute would be contrary to the spirit as well as the clear language of the aforesaid provisions . (Underscoring supplied ; see also Smith Bell & Co., Inc . v . Comm . of Customs , C. I . A. Nos . 1722 & 1921 , July 22 , 1969 ; Macondray & Co . v . Comm , of Customs , C. I . A. No . 2067 , October 6 , 1972.) Petitioner' s argument that the entries in the bill of lading, consular invoice , suppliers � in- voice s ubmitted with the manifest reflected the cor- rect cargo is of no moment . "The fact that the whole shipment was indicated in the bill of lading does not excuse compliance from the requirement of a manifest, x x x. All these cannot be accomplished by the mere use of the bill of lading inasmuch as the bill of lading is not required to be presented to the boarding customs officers . " (Macondray & Co. , Inc . v. Commissioner of Customs , C. I . A. No . 1641 , Nov. 15, 1965; see also Macondray & Co. , Inc . v. Comm. of Customs , C.I . A. No . 2067 , supra . ) With respect to petitioner's claim that , being an agent, it cannot be held liable for violation of any law committed by its principal , the same is un-

DECISION" - CTA CASE NO. 2073 ~ (6} T tenable . The decision subject of this appeal shows that the fine was imposed under section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code against the offending ves - sel . The inclusion of petiti oner as alternately liable for the fine is due to the faci that it sub- mitted itself to the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Customs as agent of the vessel . (Se e Macondray & Co . v , Comm , of Customs, c.T. A . ' No . 2067, supra , ) On the amount of fine imposed , we find no rea- son to modify the same . Considering that many cases of ~imilar nature have been appealed to us by peti- tioner , the fine imposed by the Collector of Customs of Manila and affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs appears reasonable , \t\/HEREFORE , the decision appealed from is here- by affirmed in toto . With costs against petitioner, SO ORDEHED. Q~ezon . City , November 25 , 1972 . ~- RClviAN M . Pr~siding WE CONCUR: fL--. j ~~ - RAi\110N L . AVANCENA Associate Judge