Appeal from  a decision of the  Court of Tax  Appeals. In July, 1950 agents of Customs Patrol  Service boarded and searched the M/V "Crete Maersk",  of which respondent Cia.  Gral.  de  Tabacos  is  a  special agent.  The ship had  a "Manifest"  (Exh. "A") and among the provisions listed therein were "Cigarettes Cartons 3260  pcs."  But upon a recount of the amount of  cigarettes contained in the slob chests it  was  found  out  by the customs agents that there was an excess  of 420 cartons  over and above the quantity  listed in the  "Manifest".   This excess was ordered confiscated by  the Commissioner of Customs  on June 5, 1951.   The Cia. Gral. de Tabacos appealed  from the above decision to the Court  of Tax Appeals and this court reversed the confiscation, ordering the  return of the 420  cartons  of  cigarettes,  or the refund  of the proceeds from the sale thereof.   The Court of Tax  Appeals held that the 420 cartons of cigarettes form  part.of the ship's store, which was not required to be  entered  in a detailed manifest, and  that the  same are not subject to  confiscation under the provisions of Section 1363  (g) of the Revised Administrative Code.

It  is the  contention  of the Solicitor General on this appeal that the  stock of cigarettes carried on board was required to be listed in a manifest, as provided in Section 1228 of  the Revised  Administrative  Code,  and  what is not so  listed is subject to confiscation under Section  1363 (g)   of  the  Revised  Administrative  Code.  The  appeal involves the interpretation of the above-mentioned sections of the Revised Administrative  Code, which are as follows:

"Sec.  1228.  Manifest required of vessel  from  foreign port. Every vessel  from  a foreign port  or place must have on  board complete written or typewritten  manifests 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 or place must  have on board complete manifests  of passengers,  immigrants, 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 ship's stores  then  on board.  If the vessel  does  not carry cargo,  passengers, or immigrants,  there must still be manifest showing that no  cargo 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, except after entry of the vessel, "by means  of an amendment by the master, consignee, or agent thereof, u
nder oath, and attached to the original manifest."

"Sec.  1363. Property  subject  to forfeiture under customs laws. Vessels,  cargo,  merchandise, and' other  objects and  things  shall, under the conditions herein below  specified, be subject to forfeiture:

"(g) Unmanifested merchandise found on any vessel, a manifest therefor being required,"

*             *             *             *             *             *             *

A  cursory  reading of  the  first section readily  shows that what  is required  is a "manifest of all her  (ship's) cargo."   "Cargo" is  what Is intended to be unloaded and landed at a  port, . The "Manifest" contains  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."  As ship's provisions are  not to be  unloaded and delivered to consignees, they are  not  supposed to be included  in  the  "manifests"  as above required.   Under the law, they are  to be contained in "a complete list of  all ship's stores."  Such has been our interpretation in the cases of United States vs. SS. "Islas Filipinas," 28 Phil. 291 and United States vs. Steamship "Rubi", 32  Phil. 228, where we said:

"Another contention of the appellant is that  the opium in question is not 'cargo' within the meaning of the customs laws.  The term 'cargo' is not specifically  defined  in the Customs Administrative Act, but from the  language  used in several of its provisions it is clear that the word 'cargo' as used in the section, under consideration includes  all goods, wares,  and merchandise aboard ship which do not form, of the ship's  stores.

"Black's Law Dictionary  defines the term  'cargo' as follows: 'The load or lading of  a vessel;  goods  and  merchandise put on  board a ship to be carried to  a certain port."   (U.S. vs. S,S. "Islas Filipinas, supra, p. 297.)

"*  *  *  Having in  mind the  context,  and  the  purposes and objects sought to be obtained by the enactment of this  statute; we are satisfied that the word 'cargo'  as used in the first paragraph of section 77 refers to the 'entire lading of the ship which  Carries it' and includes  all goods, wares, merchandise, effects, and indeed everything, of every kind  or description, found on board, except such  things as are used or intended for use in connection with  the management or  direction of the vessel and  are not  intended  for delivery at any port of  call, and except also, perhaps 'passengers or immigrants and their baggage."  (U.S. vs. Steamship "Rubi" supra, p.  235.)

We, therefore, find  no error in the  conclusion  of the Court of  Tax  Appeals  that the cigarettes  carried as provisions  do not need to be listed in the manifest of a ship's cargo.  True it  is, failure  to  detail  them in  the  list of provisions may facilitate illegal importation, which zealous customs officials should prevent.   However,  neither the probability of illegal importation. nor the seal  of  customs officers  justify  a liberal  construction of the  penal provisions  and permit Us to  impose  a penalty  for an  act which the law does not expressly and clearly punish.

The decision  appealed from is affirmed, with costs de oficio.

Paras, C. J.,  Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes,  A,, Bautista Angelo,  Concepcion, Reyes, J.  B.  L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.