GR L 9901; (August, 1957) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-9901, August 30, 1957.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, petitioner, vs. COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, respondent.
FACTS
In July 1950, customs agents searched the M/V “Crete Maersk,” for which the respondent was a special agent. The ship’s manifest listed “Cigarettes Cartons — 3260 pcs.” A recount of the cigarettes in the slop chests revealed an excess of 420 cartons over the quantity listed in the manifest. The Commissioner of Customs ordered the confiscation of this excess on June 5, 1951. The respondent appealed to the Court of Tax Appeals, which reversed the confiscation, ordering the return of the cigarettes or a refund of the sale proceeds. The Court of Tax Appeals held that the 420 cartons were part of the ship’s stores, not required to be detailed in a cargo manifest, and thus not subject to confiscation under Section 1363(g) of the Revised Administrative Code.
ISSUE
Whether the excess 420 cartons of cigarettes, as part of the ship’s stores, are required to be listed in the vessel’s cargo manifest under Section 1228 of the Revised Administrative Code and are thus subject to confiscation as unmanifested merchandise under Section 1363(g) of the same Code.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Tax Appeals. The Court held that a ship’s stores or provisions are not “cargo” as required to be listed in a detailed cargo manifest under Section 1228. The law requires a separate “complete list of all ship’s stores.” Citing previous cases (United States vs. SS. “Islas Filipinas” and United States vs. Steamship “Rubi”), the Court defined “cargo” as all goods aboard ship except those used for the vessel’s management and not intended for delivery at a port, which includes ship’s stores. Therefore, the cigarettes, as provisions, did not need to be listed in the cargo manifest and their excess was not subject to confiscation under Section 1363(g) for being unmanifested merchandise. The Court emphasized that neither the potential for illegal importation nor the zeal of customs officials justifies a liberal construction of penal provisions to impose a penalty for an act not expressly punished by law.