Sarji v. M.N.R. ( Customs & Excise )
T-2468-93
Lemieux J.
31/8/99
24 pp.
Action against decision of MNR confirming forfeiture of seized jewellery on grounds of plaintiff's failure to report, contrary to Customs Act, s. 12, jewellery on return to Canada from trip to United States-Seized jewellery to be returned upon payment of sum of $3,791.04-51 personal items of gold jewellery, 18 of which previously returned by defendant to plaintiff, involved herein-Jewellery of foreign origin, purchased in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, to be worn by woman, child-Minister's decision taken under Act, s. 131-Whether plaintiff breached reporting provisions of s. 12 when making customs declaration upon deplaning at Dorval International Airport on October 30, 1992-Plaintiff, wife, child left Canada in late 1991 for Los Angeles-Plaintiff wanted to be with father who was to be hospitalized for some time-Wife brought with her jewellery in question-Plaintiff returned to Montréal on October 30, 1992, bringing with him jewellery in money belt-Upon completing prescribed Canada Customs form E-311, plaintiff wrote "No" to question "I am bringing into Canada goods which exceed the values/ quantities of my personal exemption, including gifts"-Plaintiff failing to meet reporting requirements of Act, Reporting Regulations-Case to be decided as matter of statutory interpretation-Plaintiff had obligation under Act, s. 12, Reporting Regulations, to report wife's, daughter's jewellery on E-311 prescribed form authorized by Minister under Act, s. 8-Prescribed form E-311 requiring plaintiff to declare "all goods which he had purchased, received or acquired in any manner while outside the country", that is on July 10, 1992 trip to United States where plaintiff took possession of wife's jewellery-Plain, ordinary meaning of word "received" "take or accept into one's hand or one's possession, accept delivery of, be a recipient"-Words having broad meaning, covering circumstances of plaintiff's taking possession of wife's, daughter's jewellery while in United States, bringing jewellery into Canada on October 30, 1992-Interpretation in accordance with purpose of reporting provisions of Act, Regulations-Plaintiff not linking, matching in reasonable way seized jewellery to wife's previous settler's declaration-Defendant released jewellery to plaintiff where satisfied some of seized jewellery matched, could be covered by wife's settler declaration-Defendant's action, while discretionary, appropriate-Plaintiff's counsel arguing due diligence defence to violation of Act, s. 12-Onus on plaintiff, on balance of probabilities, to establish he took every reasonable steps to avoid breach of reporting section of Act, Regulations-No evidence plaintiff took all reasonable steps to report seized jewellery-Action dismissed-Customs Act, R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 1, ss. 8, 12 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (3rd Supp.), c. 41, s. 119; S.C. 1992, c. 28, s. 3; 1996, c. 31, s. 75; 1997, c. 36, s. 149), 131 (as am. by S.C. 1993, c. 25, s. 84)-Reporting of Imported Goods Regulations, SOR/86-873.