Canada (Minister of Customs and Excise) v. Jay Norris Canada Inc., (1986) 1 F.T.R. 149 (TD)

• Judge: Joyal, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 21, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1986), 1 F.T.R. 149 (TD)

Can. v. Jay Norris Can. Inc. (1986), 1 F.T.R. 149 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Canada (Minister of Customs and Excise) v. Jay Norris Canada Inc.

(No. T-1921-82)

Indexed As: Canada (Minister of Customs and Excise) v. Jay Norris Canada Inc.

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Joyal, J.

February 12, 1986.

Summary:

The Minister brought an action against Jay Norris for $290,480.15 allegedly owing in customs duties and excise taxes because of an underestimation of the value for duty of goods imported by Jay Norris.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, allowed the action.

Customs - Topic 6225

Payment of duty - Valuation for duty - Invoice price - A mail order company was invoiced $874,609.14 for photographic layouts, etc. imported from a New York company - The company valued the imports at $9,404.75 for duty purposes, submitting that the majority of the invoice price represented fees for consultant's services - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that the invoice price was prima facie the value for duty - However, the court held that the value for duty equalled the invoice price less the portion of the invoice price covering consultation and other services that were effectively unrelated to the imported product - See paragraphs 29 to 41.

Customs - Topic 8324

Offences and penalties - Evidence and proof - Burden of proof - Section 192(1) of the Customs Act made it an offence to make a false invoice respecting the value for duty - Section 192(2) provided for a monetary penalty in addition to other penalties - A company imported goods invoiced at $874,609.14 and valued them for duty at $9,404.75 - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the gross discrepancy raised a prima facie case that the duty invoices were intentionally false - Section 248 placed the burden on the company to prove good faith or lack of blameworthy conduct - The court held that a simple assertion of good faith or ignorance of the law, without credible evidence, was insufficient to discharge the company's burden - See paragraphs 18 to 27.

Cases Noticed:

Minister of Customs and Excise v. Clouston Foods Canada Ltd. (1982), 4 C.E.R. 167, refd to. [para. 24].

Minister of Customs and Excise v. Mondev Corp. Ltd. (1974), 33 C.P.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 24].

Minister of Customs and Excise v. Kay Silver Inc. (1980), 2 C.E.R. 307, refd to. [para. 25].

Statutes Noticed:

Customs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-40, sect. 42(1), sect. 42(2) [para. 37]; sect. 102 [para. 36]; sect. 192 [para. 24]; sect. 248 [para. 18].

Counsel:

Appearances: Stephen E. Barry, for the plaintiff;

Michael E. Heller, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Frank Iacobucci, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, for the plaintiff;

Selinger, Kazandjian, Heller, Montreal, Quebec, for the defendant.

This action was heard at Montreal, Quebec, on January 21, 1986, before Joyal, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on February 12, 1986.