Mattu v. Canada, (1991) 45 F.T.R. 190 (TD)

• Judge: MacKay, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 04, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1991), 45 F.T.R. 190 (TD)

Mattu v. Can. (1991), 45 F.T.R. 190 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Davinder Kaur Mattu (plaintiff) v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada, on behalf of the Minister of National Revenue (defendant)

(T-675-89)

Indexed As: Mattu v. Canada

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

MacKay, J.

June 14, 1991.

Summary:

Customs officials seized jewelry from Mattu upon her return to Canada from India for breaching s. 12 of the Customs Act (importation without declaring the jewelry). The jewelry was forfeited to the Crown subject to the payment of the duty, excise taxes and penalties. Mattu appealed under s. 135 of the Customs Act, claiming the jew­elry was exempt from duty as she took it with her to India to be redesigned and, accordingly, there was no importation upon her return to Canada.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, dismissed the application.

Customs - Topic 2843

Report and entry inwards - Declarations - When required - Mattu failed to declare jewelry on her return to Canada contrary to s. 12 of the Customs Act - Mattu first stated she had no jewelry, then claimed it was personal jewelry taken with her to be redesigned in India - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that Mattu failed to discharge the onus of proving that the jewelry was taken out of Canada and returned, thereby exempting it from duty - Mattu did not know what changes were made to the jewelry and there was no other evidence to establish that the jewelry seized at Customs was the same jewelry she allegedly left Canada with - The court affirmed the validity of the seizure of the jewelry.

Customs - Topic 2845

Report and entry inwards - Declarations - Requirement of accuracy - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that "the issue of good faith, lack of intent to mislead, or even inadvertent error, in reporting of goods for Customs purposes is not a ground for holding seizure of goods to be invalid where they have been wrongly reported" - See paragraph 26.

Customs - Topic 8324

Offences and penalties - Evidence - Proof - Burden of proof - [See Customs - Topic 2843 ].

Customs - Topic 9101

Appeals - To court - From Minister - Nature of - Section 135 of the Customs Act provided an appeal from the Minister's decision under s. 131 following seizure of undeclared goods - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, stated that s. 135 "provides for a trial de novo in the sense that the court is not limited to consider­ation of evidence that was before the Minister. At the same time, as in the case of appeals from other administrative deci­sions or decisions of quasi-judicial bodies established by statute this court will not readily vary the decision appealed from unless it is persuaded that the Minister or his agents failed to observe a principle of natural justice or failed to act within his or her statutory discretion, or that the decision is based on an error in law, or is based on a finding of fact that is perverse or capri­cious or without regard to the evidence before the Minister." - See paragraph 27.

Cases Noticed:

Freesman v. Canada, [1982] 2 F.C. 900; 4 C.E.R. 117, refd to. [para. 24].

Gervais v. Canada (1985), 9 C.E.R. 267 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

Lanctôt (Raymond) Ltée v. Canada (1990), 35 F.T.R. 96; 3 T.C.T. 5244 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

Gaji et al. v. Canada (1986), 12 C.E.R. 197 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 26].

Statutes Noticed:

Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-52.6, sect. 11 [para. 24]; sect. 12 [para. 3]; sect. 13, sect. 17 [para. 24]; sect. 131(1)(a), sect. 131(2), sect. 131(3), sect. 133(1), sect. 133(2), sect. 135(1) [para. 20].

Federal Court Rules, rule 300(1) [para. 5].

Counsel:

Bikar Mattu, on behalf of the plaintiff;

Kathryn I. Denhoff, for the defendant.

Solicitors of Record:

Davis & Co., Vancouver, B.C., for the defendant.

This appeal was heard on June 4, 1991, at Vancouver, B.C., before MacKay, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on June 14, 1991.