Case Digest (G.R. No. 73490)
Facts:
United States Lines, Inc. filed a petition for review of the Court of Tax Appeals’ decision dated September 27, 1985, which affirmed the Commissioner of Customs’ decision dated April 5, 1984 imposing an administrative fine of P10,000.00 on petitioner’s vessel, MV “American Venture,” for violation of Sec. 1005 of the Tariff and Customs Code as amended, in relation to Sec. 2521 of the same Code. On October 15, 1976, the vessel arrived in Manila from Hongkong, carrying two containers consigned by the same shipper and from the same loading port, described in the respective bills of lading (B/L No. 38 and B/L No. 39) as “Shipper’s Load and Count.” The first container (Cont. # 2020984) was described as containing “38 cases” of one hundred percent cotton brushed denim broken twill, while the second container (Cont. # 2101730) was described as containing “40 cases” of one hundred percent cotton sulphur dyed denim, for a declared total of one container only, with the total number of caseCase Digest (G.R. No. 73490)
Facts:
United States Lines, Inc. owned and operated the vessel MV "American Venture", which arrived in Manila from Hongkong on October 15, 1976. The shipment included two containers consigned by the same shipper from the same loading port, described in the bills of lading as "Shipper's Load and Count", and the information was copied into the vessel’s Inward Foreign Manifest.Upon opening by the Bureau of Customs, Container USLU-202984 contained 34 cases instead of 38, while Container USLU-2101730 contained 44 cases instead of 40; the total across both containers remained 78 cases, and with customs consent the manifest was amended on November 3, 1976 to reflect the actual quantities per container. The Collector of Customs imposed an administrative fine of P10,000.00, as affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs and the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA).
Issues:
- Whether Customs Administrative Order (CAO) No. 8-75 was irrelevant and contrary to Sec. 1005 of the Tariff and Customs Code.
- Whether a carrier should be held liable for a fine under Sec. 2521 in relation to Sec. 1005 when the incorrect quantity stemmed from a clerical error attributable to the shipper and not discoverable until after customs examination.
- Whether there was a violation of Sec. 1005 despite the fact that the total number of cases across the two containers was exactly the same as declared in the bills of lading and the Inward Foreign Manifest.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)