COMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PETITIONER, VS. HON. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, SMITH BELL & CO., INC., IN ITS CAPACITY AS AGENT OF SS “NORMAN”, RESPONDENTS.

GANCAYCO, J.:

The Commissioner of Customs, the herein petitioner, elevated
this case on certiorari to this Court for a review of the decision of the
respondent Court of Tax Appeals reversing the decision of the petitioner,
holding that petitioner misapplied certain sections of the Tariff and Customs
Code.^[1] Earlier, petitioner affirmed the
judgment rendered by his subordinate, the Collector of Customs of
Manila.

The legal provisions involved in this case are Sections 1005,
2521, and 2523 of the Tariff and Customs Code.  Section 1005 lays down the
indispensable requirement that every vessel coming from a foreign part must have
on board a complete manifest of all her cargo, further stating therein the
required contents of each manifest intended to be submitted to the customs
authorities.  It reads:

“SEC. 1005.  Manifest Required of Vessel From Foreign Port.  —
Every vessel from a foreign port must have on board a complete manifest of all
her cargo.

All of the cargo intended to be landed at a port in the
Philippines must be described in separate manifests for each port of call
therein.  Each manifest shall include the port of departure and the port of
delivery with the marks, numbers, quantity and des­cription of the packages and
the names of the consignees thereof.  Every vessel from a foreign port must have
on board complete manifests of passengers and their baggage, in the pres­cribed
form, setting forth their destination and all particulars required by the
immigration laws; and every such vessel shall have prepared for presentation to
the proper customs official upon arrival in ports of the Philippines a complete
list of all sea stores then on board.  If the vessel does not carry cargo or
passengers the manifest must show that no cargo or passenger, as the case may
be, is carried from the port of departure to the port of destination in the
Philippines.

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: 
Provided, however, That after the invoice and/or entry covering an importation
have been received and recorded in the office of the appraiser, no amendment of
the manifest shall be allowed, except when it is obvious that a clerical error
or any other discrepancy has been committed in the preparation of the manifest,
without any fraudulent intent, discovery of which could not have been made until
after examination of the importation has been completed.”

Both Secs. 2521 and 2523 provide for the corresponding
penalties in case Sec. 1005 is violated.

The facts of the case are
substantially related in the decision of the respondent Court of Tax Appeals as
follows:

“It appears that on July 20, 1966, the vessel SS “NORMAN”, with
Customs Registry No. 10 85, arrived at the port of Manila carrying, among
others, a shipment of 1,400 Multiwall Paper Bags.  The vessel’s cargo manifest
shows that the gross weight of said articles was 3,620 kilos, but based on the
bill of lading and customs appraisal, the actual and correct weight thereof was
36,197 kilos.  Consequently, to correct the weight declared in the manifest,
petitioner, in its capacity as ship agent, filed an amendment on July 27, 1966,
which amendment was ap­proved by the Bureau of Customs without prejudice to any
administra­tive action which might be taken against the vessel.

In 1969,
the SS “NORMAN”, represented by herein petitioner, was charged for violation of
Section 1005, in relation to Section 2523, of the Tariff and Customs Code. 
However, on March 16, 1971, counsel for the Bureau of Customs sought the
amendment of the charge to one for violation of Section 1005, in relation to
Section 2521 of the Code.

On June 11, 1971, after hearing, the Collector
of Customs rendered a decision imposing upon the vessel and/or petitioner herein
a fine of P7,000.00 for violation of Section 1005, in relation to Section 2521,
of the Tariff and Customs Code.

On November 20, 1972, said decision of
the Collector was affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs.” x x
x

The main issue posed for this Court’s consideration is — in
case the weight of a cargo is inaccurately or incorrectly stated in the
manifest, which provision of the Tariff and Customs Code should be applied to
the situation, Section 2521 or Section 2523?

Sections 2521 and 2523
provide —

“SEC. 2521 – Failure to Supply Requisite Manifests, — If any
vessel or aircraft enters or departs from a port of entry without submitting the
proper manifests to the customs authorities, or shall enter or depart conveying
unmanifested cargo other than as stated in the next preceding section hereof,
such vessel or aircraft shall be fined an amount not less than ten thousand
pesos (P10,000.00) but not exceeding thirty thousand (P30,000.00)
pesos.

The same fine shall be imposed upon any arriving or departing
vessel or aircraft if the master or pilot in command shall fail to deliver or
mail to the Commission on Audit a true copy of the manifest of the incoming or
outgoing cargo, as required by law.  (As amended by P.D. No. 1258-A)”

“SEC. 2523.  Discrepancy Between Actual and Declared Weight of
Manifested Article. — If the gross weight of any article or package described in
the manifest exceeds by more than twenty per centum the gross weight as
declared in the manifest or bill of lading thereof, and the Collector shall be
of opinion that such dis­crepancy was due to the carelessness or incompetency of
the master or pilot in command, owner or employee of the vessel or aircraft, a
fine of not more than fifteen per centum of the value of the package or
article in respect to which the deficiency exists, may be imposed upon the
importing vessel or aircraft.”

Petitioner opines that Sec. 1005 imposes upon every vessel the
absolute obligation to have on board a complete manifest of her cargo.  A
failure to comply with said requirement is penalized with a fine under Sec. 2521
since the latter provision requires that any vessel entering or departing from a
port of entry must submit the proper manifest to the customs
authorities.  In other words, as in this case, when the weight of the cargo in
question was incorrectly stated in the manifest, petitioner contends Sec. 2521
is applicable because a manifest wherein the weight is not accurately indicated
is not a “proper” manifest.

We disagree.

If the weight of the
cargo is in issue, the provision of the Tariff and Customs Code properly
applicable is Sec. 2523, not Sec. 2521.  A special and specific provision
prevails over a general provision irrespective of their relative position in the
statute.  Generalia specialibus non derogant.  Where there is in the
same statute a particular enactment and also a general one which in its most
comprehensive sense would include what is embraced in the former, the particular
enactment must be operative, and the general enactment must be taken to affect
only such cases within its general language as are not within the provisions of
the particular enactment.^[2] It is a
principle in statutory construction that where two statutes are of equal
theoretical application to a particular case, the one specially designed for
said case must prevail over the other.^[3]

Clearly, Sec. 2523 is directly
applicable to the case at bar since said provision specifically applies to the
situation where there is a discrepancy between the actual gross weight of any
article or package described in the manifest and the gross weight as declared in
the manifest or bill of lading.

Public respondent Court of Tax Appeals in
interpreting the scope of the provision of Section 2521 of the Tariff and
Customs Code in this particular case made the following disquisition:

“In this case, there is neither a failure or an omission to
submit the requisite manifest nor an omission to include any cargo in the
manifest.  The article or cargo itself and its particulars, including the
weight, are listed and described in the manifest, but the weight declared in the
manifest is much less than the correct weight declared in the bill of
lading.  Clearly, contrary to the opinion of respondent, Section 2521 of
the Tariff and Customs Code has no application to the case at bar.”
(Underscoring Supplied)

We agree.

The said section penalizes the failure to file
a proper manifest or when the cargo is unmanifested.  In this case a manifest
has been filed declaring the weight of the cargo.  Although it appears to be
undeclared, this cannot constitute a violation of said Section 2521 of the
Tariff and Customs Code since for all legal purposes a proper manifest had been
filed covering the cargo.  The proper manifest as provided in Section
2521 should be interpreted to mean a complete manifest as provided for
in Section 1005 aforecited the pertinent portion of which provides:

“Each manifest shall include the port of departure and the port
of delivery with the marks, numbers, quantity and description of the
packages and the names of consignors thereof.” (Underscoring
supplied)

The law does not even require the weight of the cargo to be
specified.  Thus, the inclusion of the weight of the cargo in the manifest in a
lesser amount than its actual gross weight does not thereby render the manifest
incomplete.  There is no breach of Section 2521 aforesaid under these
circumstances.

The failure to declare the correct weight in the manifest
may however be penalized under Section 2523 which precisely contemplates such a
situation.

To suggest as petitioner contends, that liability can be
incurred under both Sections 2521 and 2523 aforestated in the instant case would
render nugatory the principle against double jeopardy.^[4]

At this juncture, the question is —
can the private respondent be held responsible under Section 2523?

This
must be answered in the negative.

In order to be liable under Section
2523, two requisites must be satisfied, to wit:

1)  the actual gross weight of any article or package described
in the manifest exceeds by more than twenty per centum the gross weight
as declared in the manifest or bill of lading thereof, and

2) the
Collector shall be of opinion that such discrepancy was due to the careless­ness
or incompetency of the master or pilot in command, owner or employee of the
vessel or aircraft.

While the first requirement is present, the second requirement
is not.  No evidence to that effect may be found in the records.  The respondent
court itself, in its decision, found that:

“It appears that the cargo in question was declared in the
manifest as weighing 3,620 kilos although the actual weight was 36,197 kilos. 
There is, however, no evidence that the under declaration in the weight of said
cargo was due to the carelessness or negligence of the master, pilot, owner or
employee of the vessel.  In fact, the bill of lading covering the cargo in
question reflects the correct weight x x x.”

Indeed as above related^[5], private respondent filed an amendment to
the manifest to correct the weight declared on July 27, 1966 which amendment was
approved the Bureau of Customs.  It demonstrates the diligence and good faith of
private respondent.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court
of Tax Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.  No costs.

Yap (Chairman), Narvasa, Cruz, and Sarmiento, JJ.,
concur.

Melencio-Herrera and Feliciano, JJ., on
leave.