Lanctôt (Raymond) ltée v. Canada, (1990) 35 F.T.R. 96 (TD)

• Judge: Joyal, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 11, 1990
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1990), 35 F.T.R. 96 (TD)

Lanctôt ltée v. Can. (1990), 35 F.T.R. 96 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Raymond Lanctôt Ltée v. Sa Majesté la Reine

(T-1900-88)

Indexed As: Lanctôt (Raymond) ltée v. Canada

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Joyal, J.

February 16, 1990.

Summary:

The plaintiff imported four packages of spectacle parts through Mirabel Airport. To obtain release of the shipment the plaintiff's broker filled out an interim release form that there were 10 sunglasses and 9,044 frames. Upon inspection the customs officer found 9,044 sunglasses and 10 frames. Because of this interim misdescription, the inspector seized all the goods. The property was later released, but an $8,789.73 penalty was imposed. The plaintiff commenced an action against the federal Crown for return of the penalty.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, dismissed the action and affirmed the penalty.

Customs - Topic 2845

Report and entry inwards - Declarations - Requirement of accuracy - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the Customs Act imposes on all importers a strict requirement of submitting an accounting which contains no errors - See paragraph 24.

Customs - Topic 8209

Penalties - Failure by importer to account - The plaintiff imported four packages of spectacle parts through Mirabel Airport. To obtain release of the shipment, the plaintiff's broker filled out an interim release form indicating that there were 10 sunglasses and 9,044 frames - Upon inspection the customs officer found 9,044 sunglasses and 10 frames - Because of this interim misdescription, the inspector seized all the goods - The property was later released, but an $8,789.73 penalty was imposed - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, affirmed the penalty, notwithstanding that the misdeclaration may have been an inadvertent error.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Canabec Trailers Inc., [1982] 1 F.C. 788, refd to. [paras. 16, 17].

Canada (Minister of Customs and Excise) v. Jay Norris Canada Inc. (1986), 1 F.T.R. 149; 11 C.E.R. 66, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Mondev Corporation Limited (1974), 33 C.P.R.(2d) 183, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Kay Silver Inc., [1981] 2 F.C. 436, refd to. [para. 20].

Noël and André Noël Ltée v. R. (1983), 6 C.E.R. 72, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Emilien Letarte, [1981] 2 F.C. 76, refd to. [para. 23].

Porter v. Canada (1989), 26 F.T.R. 69, refd to. [para. 27].

Statutes Noticed:

Customs Act, S.C. 1986, c. 1, sect. 32 [para. 3]; sect. 33 [para. 4]; sect. 154 [para. 5].

Counsel:

Claude Trinque, for the plaintiff;

Claude Bonneau, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Latour, Trinque and Durocher, Montréal, Quebec, for the plaintiff;

John C. Tait, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, for the defendant.

This case was heard in Montreal, Quebec, on January 11, 1990, before Joyal, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following decision on February 16, 1990.