Date: 20050526
Docket: T-2154-02
Citation: 2005 FC 720
BETWEEN:
RÉAL BÉLANGER
Plaintiff
- and -
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PINARD J.
[1] By means of an action brought under section 135 of the Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (2nd. Supp.) (the Act), the plaintiff is appealing against a September 24, 2002 decision of the Minister of National Revenue rendered under section 131. The decision confirmed the assessment of duties in the amount of $11,302.75 for goods imported into Canada.
[2] On May 23, 2001, further to an investigation, Nicole Beaulieu, an investigator working for the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, issued a notice of ascertained forfeiture in the amount of $11,302.75 against the plaintiff pursuant to section 124 of the Act. The investigator felt she had reasonable grounds to believe that the plaintiff had committed several offences under the Act in respect of goods imported into Canada between August 15, 1998, and September 15, 2000.
[3] The ascertained forfeiture process was described as follows by Fish J., writing for the Supreme Court of Canada in the recent decision in Martineau v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 737 at pages 749 and 750:
[40] Ascertained forfeiture involves a four-step administrative process.
[41] First, under s. 124 of the CA, a customs officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that a provision of the CA has been contravened. Once this precondition has been met, and once it has been established that it would be difficult to seize the goods and conveyances related to the customs offence, the officer may demand that the offender pay an amount of money equal to the value of the goods.
[42] Second, the person to whom a notice of ascertained forfeiture applies has 90 days to ask the Minister to review the customs officer's decision (s. 129(1)(d) of the CA). The Minister then serves notice of the reasons in support of the imposed sanction (s. 130(1) of the CA). Within 30 days after notice of the reasons is served, the alleged offender may make submissions and give evidence, in writing, to the Minister (ss. 130(2) and 130(3) of the CA).
[43] Third, the Minister decides whether the ascertained forfeiture is valid (s. 131 of the CA). This decision "is not subject to review or to be . . . otherwise dealt with except to the extent and in the manner provided by subsection 135(1)" (s. 131(3) of the CA).
[44] Fourth, and finally, the person who requested the Minister's decision may, within 90 days after being notified of the decision, appeal by way of an action in the Federal Court (s. 135(1) of the CA).
[4] The provisions of the Act to which the Supreme Court is referring in Martineau, supra, read as follows:
| 124. (1) Where an officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person has contravened any of the provisions of this Act or the regulations in respect of any goods or conveyance, the officer may, if the goods or conveyance is not found or if the seizure thereof would be impractical, serve a written notice on that person demanding payment of (a) an amount of money determined under subsection (2) or (3), as the case may be; or (b) such lesser amount as the Minister may direct.
(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(a), an officer may demand payment in respect of goods of an amount of money of a value equal to the aggregate of the value for duty of the goods and the amount of duties levied thereon, if any, calculated at the rates applicable thereto (a) at the time the notice is served, if the goods have not been accounted for under subsection 32(1), (2) or (5) or if duties or additional duties have become due on the goods under paragraph 32.2(2)(b) in circumstances to which subsection 32.2(6) applies; or (b) at the time the goods were accounted for under subsection 32(1), (2) or (5), in any other case.
(3) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(a), an officer may demand payment in respect of a conveyance of an amount of money of a value equal to the value of the conveyance at the time the notice is served, as determined by the Minister.
(4) For the purpose of calculating the amount of money referred to in subsection (2), where the value for duty of goods cannot be ascertained, the value of the goods at the time the notice is served under subsection (1), as determined by the Minister, may be substituted for the value for duty thereof.
(4.1) Sections 117 and 119 and subsection (2) apply to a contravention of this Act or the regulations in respect of goods that have been or are about to be exported, except that the references to "value for duty of the goods" in those provisions are to be read as references to "value of the goods".
(4.2) For the purposes of subsection (4.1), the expression "value of the goods" means the total of all payments made or to be made by the purchaser of the goods to or for the benefit of the vendor.
(4.3) If the value of the goods cannot be determined under subsection (4.2), the Minister may determine that value.
(5) Service of the notice referred to in subsection (1) is sufficient if it is sent by registered mail addressed to the person on whom it is to be served at his latest known address.
(6) A person on whom a notice of ascertained forfeiture has been served shall pay, in addition to the amount set out in the notice, interest at the prescribed rate for the period beginning on the day after the notice was served and ending on the day the amount is paid in full, calculated on the outstanding balance. However, interest is not payable if the amount is paid in full within thirty days after the date of the notice.
129. (1) The following persons may, within ninety days after the date of a seizure or the service of a notice, request a decision of the Minister under section 131 by giving notice in writing, or by any other means satisfactory to the Minister, to the officer who seized the goods or conveyance or served the notice or caused it to be served, or to an officer at the customs office closest to the place where the seizure took place or closest to the place from where the notice was served:
. . .
(d) any person on whom a notice is served under section 109.3 or 124.
130. (1) Where a decision of the Minister under section 131 is requested under section 129, the Commissioner shall forthwith serve on the person who requested the decision written notice of the reasons for the seizure, or for the notice served under section 109.3 or 124, in respect of which the decision is requested.
(2) The person on whom a notice is served under subsection (1) may, within thirty days after the notice is served, furnish such evidence in the matter as he desires to furnish.
(3) Evidence may be given under subsection (2) by affidavit made before any person authorized by an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of a province to administer oaths or take affidavits.
131. (1) After the expiration of the thirty days referred to in subsection 130(2), the Minister shall, as soon as is reasonably possible having regard to the circumstances, consider and weigh the circumstances of the case and decide (a) in the case of goods or a conveyance seized or with respect to which a notice was served under section 124 on the ground that this Act or the regulations were contravened in respect of the goods or the conveyance, whether the Act or the regulations were so contravened; (b) in the case of a conveyance seized or in respect of which a notice was served under section 124 on the ground that it was made use of in respect of goods in respect of which this Act or the regulations were contravened, whether the conveyance was made use of in that way and whether the Act or the regulations were so contravened; or (c) in the case of a penalty assessed under section 109.3 against a person for failure to comply with subsection 109.1(1) or (2) or a provision that is designated under subsection 109.1(3), whether the person so failed to comply.
(1.1) A person on whom a notice is served under section 130 may notify the Minister, in writing, that the person will not be furnishing evidence under that section and authorize the Minister to make a decision without delay in the matter.
(2) The Minister shall, forthwith on making a decision under subsection (1), serve on the person who requested the decision a detailed written notice of the decision.
(3) The Minister's decision under subsection (1) is not subject to review or to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with except to the extent and in the manner provided by subsection 135(1).
135. (1) A person who requests a decision of the Minister under section 131 may, within ninety days after being notified of the decision, appeal the decision by way of an action in the Federal Court in which that person is the plaintiff and the Minister is the defendant.
|
|
124. (1) L'agent qui croit, pour des motifs raisonnables, à une infraction à la présente loi ou à ses règlements du fait de marchandises ou de moyens de transport peut, si on ne les trouve pas ou si leur saisie est problématique, réclamer par avis écrit au contrevenant_: a) soit le paiement du montant déterminé conformément au paragraphe (2) ou (3), selon le cas; b) soit le paiement du montant inférieur ordonné par le ministre.
(2) Pour l'application de l'alinéa (1)a), s'il s'agit de marchandises, le paiement que peut réclamer l'agent est celui du total de leur valeur en douane et des droits éventuellement perçus sur elles, calculés au taux applicable_: a) au moment de la signification de l'avis, si elles n'ont pas fait l'objet de la déclaration en détail ou de la déclaration provisoire prévues au paragraphe 32(1), (2) ou (5) ou si elles sont passibles des droits ou droits supplémentaires prévus à l'alinéa 32.2(2)b) dans le cas visé au paragraphe 32.2(6); b) au moment où elles ont fait l'objet de la déclaration en détail ou de la déclaration provisoire prévues au paragraphe 32(1), (2) ou (5), dans les autres cas.
(3) Pour l'application de l'alinéa (1)a), s'il s'agit de moyens de transport, le paiement que peut réclamer l'agent est celui de leur contre-valeur, déterminée par le ministre, au moment de la signification de l'avis.
(4) Dans les cas où, pour les calculs visés au paragraphe (2), il est impossible d'établir la valeur en douane des marchandises, on peut y substituer leur valeur, déterminée par le ministre, au moment de la signification de l'avis.
(4.1) Les articles 117 et 119 et le paragraphe (2) s'appliquent aux infractions à la présente loi ou aux règlements à l'égard de marchandises exportées ou sur le point de l'être, la mention de « _valeur en douane des marchandises_ » valant mention de « _valeur des marchandises_ » .
(4.2) Pour l'application du paragraphe (4.1), la valeur des marchandises est égale à l'ensemble de tous les paiements que l'acheteur a faits, ou s'est engagé à faire, au vendeur ou au profit de celui-ci à leur égard.
(4.3) Dans le cas où il est impossible d'établir la valeur des marchandises en application du paragraphe (4.2), le ministre peut déterminer cette valeur.
(5) Il suffit, pour que l'avis prévu au paragraphe (1) soit considéré comme signifié, qu'il soit envoyé en recommandé à la dernière adresse connue du destinataire.
(6) Le destinataire de l'avis est tenu de payer, en plus de la somme mentionnée dans l'avis, des intérêts au taux réglementaire, calculés sur le solde impayé pour la période allant du lendemain de la signification de l'avis jusqu'au jour du paiement intégral de la somme. Toutefois, aucun intérêt n'est exigible si la somme est payée intégralement dans les trente jours suivant la date de l'avis.
129. (1) Les personnes ci-après peuvent, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la saisie ou la signification de l'avis, en s'adressant par écrit, ou par tout autre moyen que le ministre juge indiqué, à l'agent qui a saisi les biens ou les moyens de transport ou a signifié ou fait signifier l'avis, ou à un agent du bureau de douane le plus proche du lieu de la saisie ou de la signification, présenter une demande en vue de faire rendre au ministre la décision prévue à l'article 131_:
[. . .]
d) celles à qui a été signifié l'avis prévu aux articles 109.3 ou 124.
130. (1) Le commissaire signifie sans délai par écrit à la personne qui a présenté la demande visée à l'article 129 un avis des motifs de la saisie, ou des motifs de l'avis prévu aux articles 109.3 ou 124, à l'origine de la demande.
(2) La personne visée au paragraphe (1) dispose de trente jours à compter de la signification de l'avis pour produire tous moyens de preuve à l'appui de ses prétentions.
(3) Les moyens de preuve visés au paragraphe (2) peuvent être produits par déclaration sous serment faite devant toute personne autorisée par une loi fédérale ou provinciale à faire prêter serment et à recevoir les déclarations sous serment.
131. (1) Après l'expiration des trente jours visés au paragraphe 130(2), le ministre étudie, dans les meilleurs délais possible en l'espèce, les circonstances de l'affaire et décide si c'est valablement qu'a été retenu, selon le cas_: a) le motif d'infraction à la présente loi ou à ses règlements pour justifier soit la saisie des marchandises ou des moyens de transport en cause, soit la signification à leur sujet de l'avis prévu à l'article 124; b) le motif d'utilisation des moyens de transport en cause dans le transport de marchandises ayant donné lieu à une infraction aux mêmes loi ou règlements, ou le motif de cette infraction, pour justifier soit la saisie de ces moyens de transport, soit la signification à leur sujet de l'avis prévu à l'article 124; c) le motif de non-conformité aux paragraphes 109.1(1) ou (2) ou à une disposition désignée en vertu du paragraphe 109.1(3) pour justifier l'établissement d'une pénalité en vertu de l'article 109.3, peu importe s'il y a réellement eu non-conformité.
(1.1) La personne à qui a été signifié un avis visé à l'article 130 peut aviser par écrit le ministre qu'elle ne produira pas de moyens de preuve en application de cet article et autoriser le ministre à rendre sans délai une décision sur la question.
(2) Dès qu'il a rendu sa décision, le ministre en signifie par écrit un avis détaillé à la personne qui en a fait la demande.
(3) La décision rendue par le ministre en vertu du paragraphe (1) n'est susceptible d'appel, de restriction, d'interdiction, d'annulation, de rejet ou de toute autre forme d'intervention que dans la mesure et selon les modalités prévues au paragraphe 135(1).
135. (1) Toute personne qui a demandé que soit rendue une décision en vertu de l'article 131 peut, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la communication de cette décision, en appeler par voie d'action devant la Cour fédérale, à titre de demandeur, le ministre étant le défendeur.
|
|
|
|
|
[5] The following provisions of the Act are also relevant to the case:
| 12. (1) Subject to this section, all goods that are imported shall, except in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, be reported at the nearest customs office designated for that purpose that is open for business.
. . .
(3.1) For greater certainty, for the purposes of the reporting of goods under subsection (1), the return of goods to Canada after they are taken out of Canada is an importation of those goods.
13. Every person who reports goods under section 12 inside or outside Canada or is stopped by an officer in accordance with section 99.1 shall (a) answer truthfully any question asked by an officer with respect to the goods; and (b) if an officer so requests, present the goods to the officer, remove any covering from the goods, unload any conveyance or open any part of the conveyance, or open or unpack any package or container that the officer wishes to examine.
17. (1) Imported goods are charged with duties thereon from the time of importation thereof until such time as the duties are paid or the charge is otherwise removed.
32. (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (4) and any regulations made under subsection (6), and to section 33, no goods shall be released until (a) they have been accounted for by the importer or owner thereof in the prescribed manner and, where they are to be accounted for in writing, in the prescribed form containing the prescribed information; and (b) all duties thereon have been paid.
152. (1) In any proceeding under this Act relating to the importation or exportation of goods, the burden of proof of the importation or exportation of the goods lies on Her Majesty.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), proof of the foreign origin of goods is, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, proof of the importation of the goods.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), in any proceeding under this Act, the burden of proof in any question relating to (a) the identity or origin of any goods, (b) the manner, time or place of importation or exportation of any goods, (c) the payment of duties on any goods, or (d) the compliance with any of the provisions of this Act or the regulations in respect of any goods lies on the person, other than Her Majesty, who is a party to the proceeding or the person who is accused of an offence, and not on Her Majesty.
(4) In any prosecution under this Act, the burden of proof in any question relating to the matters referred to in paragraphs (3)(a) to (d) lies on the person who is accused of an offence, and not on Her Majesty, only if the Crown has established that the facts or circumstances concerned are within the knowledge of the accused or are or were within his means to know. |
|
12. (1) Sous réserve des autres dispositions du présent article, ainsi que des circonstances et des conditions prévues par règlement, toutes les marchandises importées doivent être déclarées au bureau de douane le plus proche, doté des attributions prévues à cet effet, qui soit ouvert.
[. . .]
(3.1) Il est entendu que le fait de faire entrer des marchandises au Canada après leur sortie du Canada est une importation aux fins de la déclaration de ces marchandises prévue au paragraphe (1).
13. La personne qui déclare, dans le cadre de l'article 12, des marchandises à l'intérieur ou à l'extérieur du Canada, ou qu'un agent intercepte en vertu de l'article 99.1 doit_: a) répondre véridiquement aux questions que lui pose l'agent sur les marchandises; b) à la demande de l'agent, lui présenter les marchandises et les déballer, ainsi que décharger les moyens de transport et en ouvrir les parties, ouvrir ou défaire les colis et autres contenants que l'agent veut examiner.
17. (1) Les marchandises importées sont passibles de droits à compter de leur importation jusqu'à paiement ou suppression des droits.
32. (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (2) et (4), des règlements d'application du paragraphe (6), et de l'article 33, le dédouanement des marchandises est subordonné_: a) à leur déclaration en détail faite par leur importateur ou leur propriétaire selon les modalités réglementaires et, si elle est à établir par écrit, en la forme et avec les renseignements déterminés par le ministre; b) au paiement des droits afférents.
152. (1) Dans toute procédure engagée sous le régime de la présente loi en matière d'importation ou d'exportation de marchandises, la charge de prouver l'importation ou l'exportation incombe à Sa Majesté.
(2) Pour l'application du paragraphe (1), la preuve de l'origine étrangère des marchandises constitue, sauf preuve contraire, celle de leur importation.
(3) Sous réserve du paragraphe (4), dans toute procédure engagée sous le régime de la présente loi, la charge de la preuve incombe, non à Sa Majesté, mais à l'autre partie à la procédure ou à l'inculpé pour toute question relative, pour ce qui est de marchandises_: a) à leur identité ou origine; b) au mode, moment ou lieu de leur importation ou exportation; c) au paiement des droits afférents; d) à l'observation, à leur égard, de la présente loi ou de ses règlements.
(4) Dans toute poursuite engagée sous le régime de la présente loi, la charge de la preuve incombe, pour toute question visée aux alinéas (3)a) à d), non à Sa Majesté, mais au prévenu, à condition toutefois que la Couronne ait établi que les faits ou circonstances en cause sont connus de l'inculpé ou que celui-ci est ou était en mesure de les connaître.
|
|
|
|
|
[6] In the case at bar, to give the plaintiff the opportunity to muster all possible evidence against the May 23, 2001 notice of ascertained forfeiture, in accordance with subsection 130(2) of the Act, the defendant sent the plaintiff a copy of investigator Nicole Beaulieu's report dated April 30, 2001. The report was forwarded to the plaintiff on or about September 10, 2001, and the plaintiff did not submit any further evidence challenging the notice of ascertained forfeiture before the Minister's decision was rendered on September 24, 2002.
[7] The plaintiff now contests the existence of reasonable grounds for the investigator to believe that offences under the Act or its regulations had been committed and submits that the Minister's decision rendered pursuant to section 131 of the Act is therefore incorrect in fact and in law. However, the plaintiff did not submit any evidence contradicting the defendant's evidence, which indicated that the ascertained forfeiture was justified, since a portion of the goods could not be found, and seizing the remainder would be problematic, as the goods (a cherry picker, a caterpillar tread and a three-point backhoe) were buried under snow and ice in a practically inaccessible wooded area.
[8] Thus, there are two issues that must be resolved:
(a) whether the customs inspector had reasonable grounds to believe that the goods subject to ascertained forfeiture had not been declared or had been undervalued when imported into Canada, contrary to sections 12, 13, 17 and 32 of the Act; and
(b) whether the Minister's decision under section 131 of the Act is correct in fact and in law.
* * * * * * * * * *
[9] The imported goods in dispute consist of the following:
(1) a cherry picker;
(2) a garden tractor and a shredder;
(3) a clutch;
(4) shredder blades;
(5) tools; and
(6) farm machinery consisting of an excavator, a small caterpillar tread and a three-point backhoe.
[10] The evidence discloses the following with regard to each of these goods.
(1) Importation of the cherry picker
[11] The night of March 19, 2000, the plaintiff failed to report to an open customs office upon arriving in Canada, in violation of subsection 11(1) of the Act. The plaintiff twice admitted having committed this offence: once on April 18, 2000, to customs officer Leslie MacLeod, at the Chartierville border crossing, and a second time on February 20, 2001, to two customs investigators, Nicole Beaulieu and Jean-Maurice Ouellet, during an authorized search of his home.
[12] On the night of March 19, 2000, the plaintiff imported a cherry picker with Quebec licence plates into Canada. However, on April 12, 2001, American store owner and New Hampshire resident Eddie Nash, now deceased, told investigator Beaulieu that he had in fact sold the cherry picker to the plaintiff. On February 28, 2001, the plaintiff told the two investigators, Beaulieu and Masson, that the value of the cherry picker was $4,000.
[13] On May 9, 2002, in the matter of Court of Quebec docket number 450-73-000233-019, the plaintiff pleaded guilty to failing to report to the nearest open customs office, contrary to subsection 11(1) and section 161 of the Act. He was fined $300.
(2) Importation of the shredder
[14] On April 18, 2000, while the Chartierville customs office was closed, the plaintiff imported into Canada a shredder and a garden tractor he had bought in the United States, contrary to sections 11 and 12 of the Act. The day before, the plaintiff had entered the United States with a shredder, which he apparently sold to store owner Eddie Nash. The plaintiff then returned to Canada in the middle of the night with a different shredder.
[15] The night of April 18, 2000, a surveillance camera identified the plaintiff's truck, which was towing a trailer. There was a garden tractor in the back of the truck, and a shredder on the trailer. That the plaintiff was driving the vehicle in question is not in dispute. Since the plaintiff neither stopped at nor reported to the nearest customs office, as required under section 11 of the Act, he was arrested shortly thereafter by a Sûreté du Québec patrol and taken back to the Chartierville customs office. In reply to a question put to him by customs officer Leslie MacLeod, the plaintiff said he was not bringing back any goods from the United States. With regard to the shredder, which had a Quebec licence plate, he said that he had bought it in Quebec and was just bringing it back home after an unsuccessful attempt at selling it in the United States. However, upon examination of a receipt in the plaintiff's possession dated April 17, 2000, the customs officer noticed that the plaintiff had sold a shredder to American store owner Eddie Nash for $2,500.
[16] With regard to the garden tractor he was transporting in his truck, the plaintiff told officer MacLeod that he had not bought it in the United States, but was taking it home on consignment. However, upon examining the papers in the plaintiff's possession, the customs officer found a receipt proving that the claimant had bought the tractor the day before, April 17, 2000, from American store owner Eddie Nash.
[17] When asked if he had ever gone through customs at Chartierville before, the plaintiff told officer MacLeod that he had done so only once, about two or three years ago. When confronted by the officer, the plaintiff admitted that he had entered the country through Chartierville the previous month, on March 19, 2000, at 1:12 a.m., after the border crossing had closed.
[18] These are the circumstances that led officer MacLeod to alert the Investigations Division of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, whose investigator then asked justice of the peace Réjean Beaudoin to authorize a search warrant and two requests for information from third parties pursuant to section 43 of the Act.
[19] On May 9, 2002, in the matter of Court of Quebec docket number 450-75-000231-013, the plaintiff pleaded guilty to a number of offences, namely, failing to report to an open customs office on April 18, 2000, and importing a shredder and garden tractor on that same date without declaring them, contrary to sections 11 and 12 of the Act.
(3) Importation of the clutch
[20] On or about June 10, 2000, the claimant imported a clutch that he had purchased in the United States from store owner Eddie Nash, as evidenced by an invoice numbered 84645 seized during an authorized search on February 20, 2001. On February 28, 2001, the plaintiff admitted to customs investigators Beaulieu and Ouellet that he had imported this clutch and failed to declare it in accordance with section 12 of the Act and that the clutch was now in Canada.
(4) Importation of shredder blades
[21] On June 6, 2000, the plaintiff wrote to American company Phillip Hickok Services Inc. to order a set of shredder blades. An invoice numbered 467971 seized during an authorized search of the plaintiff's home showed that the goods were paid for on June 20. On that very same day, the plaintiff entered Canada from the United States, but not at the Rock Island border crossing, as he stated in the February 28, 2001 interview. Rather, he arrived in Canada at the crossing in St. Herménégilde, Quebec. At that time, the plaintiff declared only 21 bottles of beer, as evidenced by his B-15 accounting document numbered A01900.
5) Importation of tools
[22] In reply to an authorized information request, the Bank of Montreal sent investigator Beaulieu the plaintiff's MasterCard statements for a specific time period. An account statement dated May 3, 2000, showed that on April 11, 2000, the plaintiff had bought goods in the amounts of US$126 and US$348.10 while in the United States. Another account statement, this one dated October 3, 2000, showed that on September 13 and 15, 2000, the plaintiff had bought goods in the amounts of US$289 and US$400 while in the United States. The plaintiff did not submit bills of entry for any of these goods.
6) Importation of farm machinery
[23] On August 15, 1998, the plaintiff entered Canada accompanied by an individual named Pierre Sioui. Mr. Sioui, a status Indian, told customs authorities that he was returning to Canada with an excavator, a small caterpillar tread and a three-point backhoe and submitted a purchase invoice from Eddie Nash & Sons Inc. in the amount of US$2,600. However, during the authorized search of the plaintiff's home on February 20, 2001, an invoice in the amount of US$7,400 concerning the purchase of the same goods from the same seller was found. When questioned by the customs officers, the plaintiff produced a Casual Goods Accounting Document (B-15), dated August 15, 1998, in the name of Pierre Sioui, and admitted that this document listed the same goods that he himself had acquired for US$7,400.
* * * * * * * * * *
[24] Under subsection 152 (3) of the Act, the burden of proving the identity or origin of the goods in dispute, the manner, time or place of their importation or exportation, the payment of duties on them, and compliance with the Act and its regulations lies on the plaintiff.
[25] With regard to the cherry picker, the plaintiff claims he bought it in Canada in 1999. He said he paid cash and does not remember the name of the person or the company involved in the transaction. With regard to the shredder, he submits that he bought it in Quebec, after seeing an advance notice of it coming up for auction. He said he paid cash, without a written contract.
[26] In these two instances, however, the evidence showed that the cherry picker and the shredder were American in origin, not Canadian. Investigator Beaulieu's inquiries with Quebec's automobile insurance board (Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec, or SAAQ) revealed that there was no record of these machines having been licenced previously. A company named Les Équipements Proulx et Raiche, supplied the plaintiff with false transaction confirmation documents, which he then used to obtain Quebec licence plates for the machines from an SAAQ office. Jocelyn Raich, of Les Équipements Proulx et Raiche, testified that he provided the documentation without having seen the machinery and on the sole basis of the information provided by the plaintiff. Mr. Raiche admitted that this was not normal practice, explaining that he simply wanted to help out a regular customer.
[27] Given this licencing scheme based on transaction confirmation forms issued without supporting documentation, given the lack of credibility of the plaintiff's explanations to the effect that he did not know the names of the persons in Canada to whom he had paid cash for the cherry picker and shredder in question, and given store owner Eddie Nash's confirmation to customs investigator Beaulieu on April 12, 2001, that he had sold a cherry picker and a shredder to the plaintiff, I find that the plaintiff is not credible and that his testimony should therefore be disregarded.
[28] This finding is further supported by the testimony of Alain Leech, who testified in this Court, having already given a written statement to the same effect, that, after having sold a Asplundh-brand shredder to the plaintiff, he was asked by the plaintiff to lie to customs authorities by leading them to believe that the shredder had instead been sold to American store owner Eddie Nash. The plaintiff's credibility was further undermined by his far-fetched explanations of his late-night re-entries into Canada through the remote Chartierville border crossing and the conduct of Mr. Sioui with regard to the importation of farm machinery that Mr. Sioui, in the plaintiff's presence, falsely claimed to be for a Huron village.
[29] In the circumstances, not only did the plaintiff fail to meet the burden of proof imposed under subsection 152(3) of the Act, but there is convincing evidence to the effect that customs investigator Nicole Beaulieu had reasonable grounds to believe that the goods listed in the July 12, 2001 notice of ascertained forfeiture had been imported into Canada by the plaintiff contrary to sections 12, 13, 17 and 32 of the Act, and furthermore, that the plaintiff had violated section 11 of the Act. The same evidence confirms that the respondent's decision rendered pursuant to section 131 of the Act is well founded in fact and in law.
[30] For these reasons, the plaintiff's action is dismissed, with costs.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
May 26, 2005
Certified true translation
Michael Palles
FEDERAL COURT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-2154-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: RÉAL BÉLANGER v. THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April 18 and 19, 2005
REASONS FOR DECISION BY: The Honourable Mr. Justice Pinard
DATED: May 26, 2005
APPEARANCES:
Réal Bélanger THE PLAINTIFF, REPRESENTING HIMSELF
Jacques Mimar FOR THE DEFENDANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Réal Bélanger THE PLAINTIFF
Orford, Quebec
John H. Sims, Q.C. FOR THE DEFENDANT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Date: 20050526
Docket: T-2154-02
Ottawa, Ontario, the 26th day of May 2005
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PINARD
BETWEEN:
RÉAL BÉLANGER
Plaintiff
- and -
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Defendant
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff's action is dismissed, with costs.
JUDGE
Certified true translation
Michael Palles