CTA Case No. 2069 (Decision)

I n c R E P U OF i'HF. PHILT~Pl~E8 COl ftr TAX APPEALS Q'U!�.i.iON CITY MACONDRAY & CO ., INC ., in its capacity as agent of the MS "Toreador , " Petitioner , - versus - C . ~ . A . CASE NO . 2b69 COMMISSIONER OF CUSRTOeMspS o' ndent . X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X DECI S I 0 N Petitioner has appealed from the decision of respondent Commissioner of Customs dated November 27, 1969 , aff irming that of the Collector of Customs of Manila imposing a fine of ~1 , 000 . 00 on the vessel MS "Toreador" for violation of Section 1005, in relation to Section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Codeo On April 7, 1964, the vessel MS n~oreador" arrived at the port of Manila , conveying , among others , a manifested cargo of one crate ef observa- tory equipment which it failed to unload and dis- charge thereat. On May 16 , 1964, the same vessel called again at the same port . The same cargo was brought and discharged from �the same vessel but this time the same car go was not listed in the manifest . Thereafter, the ship agent Macondray & Co. , Inc . ,

DECISION - C. T. A. CASE NO. 2069 2- filed an amendment to the manifest by including therein said one (1) crate of observatory equipment (Exh . "A" , p . 6 , Customs rec.), which amendment was accepted and approved by the Bureau of Customs with- out prejudice to the filing of an administrative action against the vessel. On October 10 , 1969, after the termination of the administrative proceed- ing , the Collector of Customs of the Port of Manila rendered a decision holding tae vessel MS "~oreador" liable for a fine of Pl , OOO . OO for violation of Section 1005, in relation to Section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code . On November 27, 1969 , the Commissioner of Customs affirmed the said decision . Hence, this appeal . The only issue submitted to this Court for resolu- tion is whether or not the vessel MS "Toreador" is liable for the administrative fine for violation of Section 1005, in rel ation to Section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code. Section 1005, in relation to Section 2521 of the Tariff and Customs Code, provides , among others, as follows: Sec. 1005. ~fest Reguired of Ves- sel from Foreign Port .- Every vessel from a foreign port must have on board a com- plete manifest of all her cargo .

DECISION - C.T . A. CASE NO. 2069 All of the cargo intended to be landed at a port in the Philipp ines must be des- cribed in separate manifests for each port of call therein. x x x. A cargo manifest shall 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 attached to the original manifest; x x Xo Section 2 521 . Failure to Supply Reguisite 1-lanifests.- If any vessel or aircraft enters or departs from a port of entry without submitting the proper mani� fests to the customs authorities, or shall enter or depart conveying unmanifested cargo other than as stated in the next pre- ceding section ~hereof , such vessel or air- craft shal l be fined in a sum not exceed- ing ten thousand pesos. The issue before us is not new . In a previous case beti..;een the same parties (1'1acondray & Co., Inc � . vs . Commissioner of Customs, C. T.A . Case No . 2484, Jan. 19 , 1976) , involving similar issue and factual setting , this Court held: Petitioner's contention is untenable. Although the cargo was manifested during the vessel's first voyage , the fact remains that it did not discharge said cargo on the particular voyage � and it failed to have the cargo manifested on its second voyage . In the circumstances, it is an indispensa- ble l eg al requirement that every time a vessel arrives in the Philippines from a foreign port, it must have a complete manifest of all its cargo which are intended to be unloaded and discharged at our legal ports of entry. Thus , it was held: Under Section 1005 of the Tariff and Customs Code , it is an imperative ob- ligation of every ves sel from a foreign port to have on board a compl�ete mani- fest of all her cargo. No exception is

DECISION - C. T. A. CASE NO . 2069 .. l.r - mentioned in the statute . Neither is there mention e f any exception in Sec- tion 2521 of said Code providing for a fine for vessels without proper manifests , nor in Section 2530 thereof provi ding for the confiscation of unmanifested goods . The recognition by the Court of any at- tempt to re ad into the statut e any ex~ ception, such as misshipment of goods, would be contrary to the pervasive spi- rit as well as the clear language of the aforesaid provisionso (Smith Bell & Co . , (Philo) Inc . VSo Comrn. of Customs , c . T. A. Cases Noso 1728 & 1921 , July 22, 1969; Macondray & Co., In~ . vs . Commo of Cus- toms, C. T. A. Case No . 2067, Oct . 6, 1972) . Petitioner's defense of good faith and the acceptance and approval by the Bureau� of Customs of an� amendment to the manifest had invariably been rejected by the Tax Court in previous eases involving the same controversial issue . (Macondray & Co ., Inc . vs . Commo of Customs~ C. T. Ao Case No. 2082 , Sept . 17 , 197Y-1 Macondray & Coq , Inc. vso Comm . of Customs , C . ~ . A . CASE NO . 2203, J~ne 15, 1973 ; Macondray & Co . , Inc . vs. Comm. of Customs , C. T. A. Case No . 1992 , April 4, 1973 . ) We find no valid justificat ion to deviate from our ruling in tho se caseso WHEREFORE , the decision of the respondent Com- missioner of Customs appealed from is hereby affirmed. '.Fhe vessel MS ''Toreador'' and/or petitioner herein, in its capacity as ship agent , are hereby ordered to pay to the Bureau of Customs the fine of ~1,000 . 00 . With costs o SO ORDERED . Quezon City, November 28 , 1977 . /? 1// ~c;Jt!:ec~ CONSTAN~ E C. !Rt AQUIN ~ ssociate Judge AMAN TE Acting Pres