LI TECK SAN, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. THE INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLEE.

The facts in these six cases, according to the agreement of the parties are,
substantially, as follows: (1) That on November 4, 1927, the plaintiff imported
33 boxes of undershirts into the port of Manila, declaring their value to be
6,750 yen, but the defendant appraised them at 8,081 yen; (2) that on the 22d of
the same month, the plaintiff imported 21 boxes of undershirts, declaring their
value to be 4,280 yen, but the defendant appraised them at 4,995 yen; (3) that
on the 15th of December, 1927, the plaintiff imported 15 boxes of undershirts,
declaring their value to be 3,880 yen, but the defendant appraised them at 4,460
yen; (4) that on the 22d of the same month, the plaintiff imported 48 boxes of
undershirts, declaring their value to be 9,234 yen, but the defendant appraised
them at 10,600 yen; (5) that on the 6th of January, 1928, the plaintiff imported
21 boxes of undershirts, declaring their value to be 4,627 yen, but the
defendant appraised them at 5,600.36 yen; (6) that on the 16th of the same
month, the plaintiff imported 10 boxes of undershirts, declaring their value to
be 2,520 yen, but the defendant appraised them at 3,280 yen.

The plaintiff’s values were based upon the consular invoices, while the
defendant based his appraisal of the undershirts upon the prices declared upon
the respective dates by wholesale importers of the same class of
merchandise.

Consequently, the declared value of the undershirts as given by the plaintiff
is more than 10 per cent less than the value appraised by the defendant.
Therefore, in accordance with section 1290 of the Administrative Code, the
defendant imposed a certain surcharge upon the plaintiff. The latter paid it
under protest and appealed to the Court of First Instance of Manila. The lower
court dismissed the appeal taken in the six cases holding them to be groundless.
It is from this judgment that the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

The only question raised in this instance in connection with the six cases is
whether or, not the plaintiff having acted without malice or fraud, the
surcharge imposed upon him by the defendant is legal.

As the court below correctly held, the importer need not have acted
fraudulently in order that a surcharge may be imposed upon him under section
1290 of the Administrative Code; a lower declaration of the value of the
merchandise is sufficient. This opinion is based upon the letter and the spirit
of the law, which does not require fraud on the importer’s part, for the
imposition of the surcharge. If the declaration is fraudulent, the merchandise
will be subject to seizure in accordance with section 1363 of said
Administrative Code.

Furthermore, conceding that section 1290 of the Administrative Code grants
the Insular Collector of Customs discretion to impose the surcharge for
undervaluation of the merchandise by the importer, the circumstances of the six
cases here appealed justify the use of this discretion made by the defendant,
considering that the plaintiff declared the lower valuation upon the different
dates when the facts in these cases occurred.

The judgments appealed from are hereby affirmed, with costs against the
appellant. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez and
Villa-Real, JJ., concur.