Date: 20000831
Docket: T-1646-97
BETWEEN:
RONALD WILLIAMS
- and -
144096 CANADA Ltd.
(carrying on business as CAPITAL CITY HELICOPTERS)
Plaintiffs
- and -
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
BLAIS J.
[1] This is an action introduced by way of statement of claim, wherein the plaintiffs ask the Court to set aside the decision made by the defendant, on June 11, 1997 in appeal matters referenced as Customs Appeal No. CS 5253/I-OT-1257, CS 5254/I-OT-1257-A; CS 5255/I-OT-1257-B; CS 5256/I-OT-1257-C, CS 5257/I-OT-1257-D; CS 1258/I-OT-1257F.
FACTS
[2] The plaintiff, Ronald Williams, is the director of the corporate plaintiff, 144096 Canada Ltd. He owned and operated Capital City Helicopter, a helicopter charter service and other related air services in the City of Ottawa.
[3] The plaintiff Williams signed a letter of intent, dated October 17, 1994 to purchase six aircraft for a total value of $140,000 U.S. from M. Robert Morse.
[4] That deal did not go through as it was complicated and unworkable. Furthermore, the plaintiff found out that he could not register the aircraft with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), since the owner was not American.
[5] The plaintiff Williams proceeded then to incorporate the corporate plaintiff in the state of Delaware in order to register. The incorporation came in effect on July 17, 1995.
[6] The corporate plaintiff d.b.a. Capital City Helicopter, purchased five aircraft in the United States from Robert Morse, of Aircraft Title Corporation for $38,500.00 U.S. The purchase document completed in July of 1995, was backdated September 1st, 1994. Those aircraft are a 1964 Cessna model 336, a 1975 Cessna model 150L, a 1967 Cessna model 172H, a 1971 Cessna model 150L and a Cessna model 172.
[7] Following the purchase, the aircraft were leased back to Mores flight school.
[8] The aircraft were registered with the FAA and a certificate of registration was issued on October 3 and 4 of 1995.
[9] In September of 1995, the airport in New York, where the aircraft were based, was sold to Wall-Mart and the flight school was dismantled.
[10] Having to relocate the aircraft, the plaintiff decided to have the aircraft flown in to MacDonald Cartier International Airport in Ottawa, since Williams operates his business at this location, with the intention to store them for a while before deciding what would be the next step. Four of the five aircraft arrived in Ottawa the 15th of October 1995, the fifth aircraft arrived the following day, due to an engine problem, the aircraft stayed in Burlington for an extra day.
[11] The presence of the aircraft was reported upon arrival to Customs officials who issued an E-99, a temporary importation form, allowing the aircraft to remain temporarily in Canada until December 5, 1995. A further verbal extension was granted by Ms. Lemay, a Customs official, due to the weather conditions.
[12] On January 10, 1996, four of the five aircraft were flown out of Ottawa, heading for Syracuse, New York. A Customs official was apparently present when the aircraft took off and handed back the pilots the American Registration documents, being held by Customs. The fifth aircraft had engine problems and could not be moved.
[13] Encountering weather problems, the aircraft did not cross the border but returned to Smith Falls, Ontario, where they were stored in a public hangar. They were later located by Customs officials in April 1996, where the four aircraft were seized.
[14] Customs officials also seized the remaining aircraft and a Bell helicopter in Ottawa. This helicopter was not in functioning order and has never functioned as an aircraft.
[15]
The plaintiffs, by letter dated April 25, 1996, requested that a decision be made pursuant to section 129 of the Customs Act with respect to the seizure of the aircraft and the helicopter.
[16] The plaintiffs were informed by letter dated May 8, 1996, that there had been a contravention of the Customs Act with respect to the aircraft and the helicopter. The seizure of the aircraft and the helicopter were made because they were not properly reported or accounted for to the defendant contrary to sections 15, 17, 32, 89, 122, 153 and 155 of the Customs Act.
[17] The aircraft and helicopter were valued at $330,000 by the investigator, Mr. Plamondon. The investigator later admitted that the figure was inaccurate and it was changed to $179,000.
[18] The defendant imposed a penalty of $25,197.15, amounting to twice the GST should the plaintiffs decide to import the aircraft to Canada and one time the GST, that being $12,598.98, should the plaintiffs decide to export the aircraft.
PLAINTIFFS' ARGUMENTS
Helicopter
[19] The plaintiffs claim that the helicopter was purchased in Montreal in pieces from Heli Voyageur Ltée, Val d'Or, Québec in 1984 at a bankruptcy auction. It was stored in Ottawa where the plaintiff Williams has a place of business. The helicopter was not operational.
[20] The plaintiffs point out to the fact that the serial number 2343, first included in the seizure report belonged to a helicopter lost in Korea in the 1950's. They note that the amended serial number on the seizure report belonged to a helicopter that crashed in 1996 in the United States.
[21] The plaintiffs agree that the helicopter of a foreign make was imported into Canada. However, they claim that it was imported by Héli Voyageur, from whom it was bought.
Aircraft
[22] The plaintiffs claim that none of the Cessna aircraft is the property of the corporate plaintiff and that title remains in the name of the 144096 Canada Ltd., a corporate individual registered in the State of Delaware in the United States of America. None of the aircraft are registered with the Canadian Aircraft Register and none of the titles to the aircraft have been transferred in accordance with FAA regulations and Transport Canada for export.
[23] The plaintiffs allege that the defendant was advised of the whereabouts of the said aircraft and at no time did the plaintiffs conceal the aircraft nor did they evade or attempt to evade the payment of duties under the Customs Act or Regulations. In fact, all the aircraft including the helicopter were in plain view of the authorities at the Ottawa International Airport where they were at that location.
[24] The plaintiffs submit that the aircraft were never used while in Canada.
[25] The plaintiffs explain that the aircraft were not reported to Customs in Smith Falls because the aircraft never left Canadian airspace. Furthermore, one aircraft was still in Ottawa with the knowledge of Customs officials.
Valuation
[26] The plaintiffs claim that the defendant used an appraisal of the aircraft for the adjudication into the duties owed which is the subject matter of this action from the FAA which is both incapable of providing an expert appraisal of aircraft and did not do so in this instance.
[27] The plaintiffs claim that the aircraft were expertly appraised at approximately $60,000.00. However, the defendant ignored this evidence.
[28] The plaintiffs allege that the adjudicator was unfair to them and showed bias toward the defendant by refusing to allow the plaintiffs to view the documentary evidence submitted by Customs officials. The plaintiffs had to submit a request under the Access to Information Act in order to examine the documents.
[29] The plaintiffs claim that the defendant did not give them a fair hearing to express the fact that the aircraft in question were in Canada temporarily with permission of the Customs authorities and therefore were not imported into Canada.
[30] The plaintiffs claim that the defendant failed to observe the principles of natural justice in failing to consider proper evidence.
DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENTS
Helicopter
[31] The defendant claims that it had no knowledge of the helicopter being in Canada.
[32] The defendant claims that the plaintiff imported the helicopter into Canada, but failed to report it with accordance with the Act. The importation of a helicopter was therefore made in contravention of sections 12, 15 and 89 of the Customs Act.
[33] The defendant notes that no duties were paid on the helicopter from the time of importation into Canada up to and including the date of seizure, and the failure to remit duties to the defendant was in contravention of sections 17, 32 and 89 of the Customs Act.
Aircraft
[34] The defendant claims that the plaintiffs did not advise any of its agent that the four planes that left Ottawa in January 1996, did not leave Canada and instead were stored at an airport in Smith Falls, Ontario.
[35] The defendant alleges that the aircraft were imported into Canada without the required notice to the defendant. Furthermore, since the aircraft were not exported from Canada as required in January 1996, the importation of the aircraft was therefore made in contravention of sections 12, 15 and 89 of the Customs Act.
[36] The defendant notes that no duties were paid on the aircraft from the time of importation into Canada up to and including the date of seizure, and the failure to remit duties to the defendant was in contravention of sections 17, 32 and 89 of the Customs Act.
Valuation
[37] The defendant argues that this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain question of valuation relating to section 133 of the Customs Act, as the Federal Court of Appeal and this Court have held on many occasions.
[38] Should this Court find that it does have jurisdiction, the defendant claims that the appraised value of the aircraft for the purpose of adjudication was established in accordance with the provisions of Customs Act and in particular, section 120 thereof.
[39] The defendant claims that the appraisal provided by the plaintiffs was taken into consideration as part of the process in determining the value of the planes and the helicopter.
ISSUES
| [40] 1. Was the Bell helicopter seized, imported by the plaintiffs? |
| 2. Did the plaintiffs contravene the Customs Act as noted in the seizure report? |
| 3. Does this Court have jurisdiction to entertain questions regarding the valuation of the goods seized under section 133 of the Customs Act? |
| 4. If it does, were the goods seized properly valued? |
ANALYSIS
| 1. Was the Bell helicopter seized, imported by the plaintiffs? |
[41] Section 152 of the Customs Act states with whom rests the burden of proof:
| 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. |
| 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. |
[42] Both parties agree that the helicopter was of a foreign make. However, the plaintiffs argue that it was the former owner, Héli Voyageur, who imported it.
[43] The Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. Shelley, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 196:
| It is evident to me in this case that there is on the record no rational or necessary connection between the fact proved, i.e. possession of goods of foreign origin, and the conclusion of unlawful importation which the accused under s. 248(1) must, to avoid conviction, disprove. At what remove the particular goods were imported is unknown. If the Crown is to have the benefit of the reverse onus provisions of s. 248(1) it must at least, in addition to proving foreign origin and possession of the goods, show some knowledge or means of knowledge of the circumstances of importation on the part of the accused which would enable him to show, if that be the fact, that they were lawfully imported. To require less could leave the accused with an impossible burden of proof and would amount to an irrebuttable presumption of guilt against him, depriving him of the right to be presumed innocent under s. 2(f) of the Canadian Bill of Rights. |
| [...] |
| The simple statement in the indictment of the possession of goods of foreign origin is not sufficient to support the discharge of the evidential burden upon the Crown so as to require the accused to meet it by an answer on a balance of probabilities. As I have said, the reverse onus under s. 248 would be impossible to discharge if it were sufficient simply to state possession and foreign origin in the indictment. |
[44] The plaintiffs submitted a bill of purchase dated October 3, 1984 indicating that the helicopter was bought in Québec, in pieces.
[45] Furthermore, the appraisal report ordered by the defendant concluded that the helicopter does not have a visual marking or identification plate, whereas, the seizure report clearly indicate a serial number 2543.
[46] The applicant submitted an aircraft title report by the American Aviation Title Service indicating that the Bell helicopter serial number 2543 was destroyed in 1996 in the United States.
[47] Furthermore, the appraisal report ordered by the defendant indicates:
| If it is not possible to establish a credible relationship between this aircraft and the serial number 2543, it is impossible to reestablish the airworthiness of such aircraft. |
[48] All this evidence leads me to conclude to the lack of proof that the helicopter was imported by the plaintiffs.
| 2. Did the plaintiffs contravene the Customs Act as noted in the seizure report? |
[49] The defendant alleges that the plaintiffs contravened sections 15, 17, 32, 89, 122, 153(c) and 155 of the Customs Act, as stated in the seizure receipt.
[50] Section 15 imposes a duty to report goods imported in contravention to the Act. It states:
| 15. Any person who finds or has in his possession goods that have been imported and who believes on reasonable grounds that the provisions of this or any other Act of Parliament that prohibits, controls or regulates the importation of goods have not been complied with in respect of the goods or that duties levied thereon have not been paid shall forthwith report to an officer that he has found the goods or has them in his possession. |
15. Quiconque trouve ou a en sa possession des marchandises importées et croit, pour des motifs raisonnables, que leur situation n'est pas conforme aux dispositions de la présente loi ou de toute autre loi fédérale qui prohibe, contrôle ou réglemente les importations, ou que les droits afférents n'ont pas été payés, doit aussitôt le signaler à l'agent. |
[51] This section is two folds. It comes into play if a provision of any Act that prohibits, controls or regulates the importation was contravened or if a payable duty was not paid. In the present case, both parties agree that there were no duties payable under the Customs Act. Furthermore, Mr. Bérubé, the adjudicator, explained to the Court that no GST was payable either. Therefore, the second element of section 15 does not apply herein.
[52] The question remains whether a provision of the Customs Act or another act was contravened. Did the plaintiffs breach the provisions of the Customs Act by failing to report to Customs officials that the planes were still in Canada and were they under a duty to do so? The answer to this question is closely connected to the other sections in issue and will be dealt with later on.
[53] Section 17 provides for the duty to be paid:
| 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. (2) Subject to this Act, the rates of duties on imported goods shall be the rates applicable to the goods at the time they are accounted for under subsection 32(1), (2) or (5). (3) Whenever the importer of the goods that have been released or any person authorized pursuant to paragraph 32(6)(a) or subsection 32(7) to account for goods becomes liable under this Act to pay duties thereon, the owner of the goods at the time of release becomes jointly and severally liable, with the importer or person authorized, to pay the duties. |
| 17. (1) Les marchandises importées sont passibles de droits à compter de leur importation jusqu'à paiement ou suppression des droits. (2) Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente loi, le taux des droits payables sur les marchandises importées est celui qui leur est applicable au moment où elles font l'objet de la déclaration en détail ou provisoire prévue au paragraphe 32(1), (2) ou (5). (3) Dès que l'importateur de marchandises dédouanées ou quiconque est autorisé à faire une déclaration en détail ou provisoire de marchandises conformément à l'alinéa 32(6)a) ou au paragraphe 32(7) devient redevable, en vertu de la présente loi, des droits afférents, la personne qui est propriétaire des marchandises au moment du dédouanement devient solidaire du paiement des droits. |
[54] Section 17 does not impose a duty of any sort. It serves to set the rates of duties on imported goods and clarifies that the imported goods are charged with duties from the time of importation.
[55] Section 32 of the Act provides that:
| 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. (2) In such circumstances as may be prescribed, goods may be released prior to the accounting required under subsection (1) if the importer or owner of the goods makes an interim accounting in the prescribed manner and in the prescribed form containing the prescribed information, or in such form containing such information as is satisfactory to the Minister. (3) Where goods are released under subsection (2), the person who made the interim accounting thereunder in respect of the goods shall, within the prescribed time, account for the goods in the manner described in paragraph (1)(a). [...] (6) The Governor in Council may make regulations (a) specifying persons or classes of persons who are authorized to account for goods under this section in lieu of the importer or owner thereof and prescribing the circumstances in which and the conditions under which such persons or classes of persons are so authorized; and (b) prescribing the circumstances in which goods may be released without any requirement of accounting. |
| 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. (2) Dans les circonstances prévues par règlement, le dédouanement peut s'effectuer avant la déclaration en détail prévue au paragraphe (1), à condition que l'importateur ou le propriétaire des marchandises fasse, selon les modalités réglementaires, une déclaration provisoire, qui doit être établie en la forme, ainsi qu'avec les renseignements, déterminés par le ministre ou satisfaisants pour lui. (3) En cas de dédouanement de marchandises en vertu du paragraphe (2), l'auteur de la déclaration provisoire prévue à ce paragraphe fait, dans le délai réglementaire, une déclaration en détail de ces marchandises selon les modalités prévues à l'alinéa (1)a). [...] (6) Le gouverneur en conseil peut, par règlement_: a) préciser les personnes ou les catégories de personnes autorisées à faire une déclaration en détail ou provisoire de marchandises au lieu de leur importateur ou de leur propriétaire et déterminer les circonstances et les conditions de l'autorisation; b) déterminer les circonstances dans lesquelles des marchandises peuvent être dédouanées sans avoir à être déclarées en détail. |
[56] The Accounting for Imported Goods and Payment of Duties Regulations list in section 7, the goods that may be released without any requirement of accounting under section 32 of the Act:
| 7. (1) Subject to subsection (3), the following goods may be released without any requirement of accounting under section 32 of the Act if the goods are not charged with duties and may be reported orally under the Reporting of Imported Goods Regulations: (a) goods, other than vessels, classified under tariff item No. 9801.00.10 or 9803.00.00 in the List of Tariff Provisions; (b) commercial conveyances manufactured in Canada that are classified under tariff item No. 9813.00.00 in the List of Tariff Provisions; (c) commercial conveyances previously accounted for in Canada under the Customs Act that are classified under tariff item No. 9814.00.00 in the List of Tariff Provisions; (d) goods classified under tariff item No. 9816.00.00 in the List of Tariff Provisions, if the goods are not imported as mail; and (e) goods eligible for temporary importation classified under tariff item No. 9993.00.00 in the List of Tariff Provisions. |
| 7. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (3), les marchandises énumérées ci-après peuvent être dédouanées sans avoir fait l'objet d'une déclaration en détail en vertu de l'article 32 de la Loi, si elles ne sont pas frappées de droits et peuvent faire l'objet d'une déclaration orale en vertu du Règlement sur la déclaration des marchandises importées : a) les marchandises, à l'exception des bateaux, classées dans les nos tarifaires 9801.00.10 ou 9803.00.00 de la liste des dispositions tarifaires; b) les moyens de transport commerciaux fabriqués au Canada et classés dans le no tarifaire 9813.00.00 de la liste des dispositions tarifaires; c) les moyens de transport commerciaux déjà déclarés en détail au Canada en vertu de la Loi sur les douanes et classés dans le no tarifaire 9814.00.00 de la liste des dispositions tarifaires; d) les marchandises classées dans le no tarifaire 9816.00.00 de la liste des dispositions tarifaires qui ne sont pas importées comme courrier; e) les marchandises admissibles à l'importation temporaire et classées dans le no tarifaire 9993.00.00 de la liste des dispositions tarifaires. |
[57] Tariff item 9801.10.00, raised by Counsel for the plaintiffs states:
| Conveyances or containers, (a) on a condition that: (ii) in the case of aircraft, they comply with the requirements of the Aeronautics Act and any regulations made thereunder, and (c) on condition that the conveyances or containers: (i) are owned or leased and imported by a person whose domicile is in a foreign country; (ii) leave from and return to the foreign country in the normal course of operation; (iii) are controlled from the foreign country; and (iv) are exported within 30 days of the date of their importation or for an additional period not exceeding 24 months where a customs officer is satisfied that the exportation of the conveyances or containers is delayed because: (A) of adverse weather conditions; (B) the conveyances or containers are being equipped, reconditioned, reconstructed, refurbished or repaired (C) the conveyance or containers have a major equipment breakdown. |
| Moyens de transport et conteneurs, (a) à la condition que: (ii) dans le cas des aéronefs, ils sont conformes aux exigences de la Loi sur l'aéronautique et de ses règlements d'application; et (c) à la condition que les moyens de transport ou les conteneurs: (i) appartiennent à la personne don't le domicile est dans un pays étranger, ou sient loués par une telle personne, et soient importés par une telle personne; (ii) quittent le pays étranger et y retournent dans le cours normal de l'exploitation; (iii) soient contrôlés depuis le pays étrager; et (iv) soient exportés dans les 30 jours suivant la date de leurs importations ou pour une période additionnelle n'excédant pas 24 mois, si un agent des douanes est satisfait que l'exportation des moyens de transport ou des conteneurs est retardée pour l'une des raisons suivantes: (A) des conditions atmosphériques défavorables; (B) l'équipement, la remise à neuf, la reconstruction, la rénovation, ou la réparation des moyens de transport ou des conteneurs; (C) une panne matériel importante des moyens de transport ou des conteneurs |
[58] In my view, this tariff is not applicable herein, since the condition specified in subparagraph (c)(ii) is not met.
[59] Turning to Tariff 9993.00, which states:
| Goods, not including conveyances, containers or baggage of tariff item No. 9801.10.00 or 9801.20.00, or of Chapter 89 (except when imported for the purpose of repair, overhaul, alteration, adjustment, storage, display at an exhibition of similar manufacturers, racing, testing, certification by an accredited organization, or to be employed in the production of films or commercials, or in response to an emergency or emergency response training exercise, or for in-transit movement through Canada, or as a commercial sample, or when imported by non-resident teams or athletes, or their support personnel, for their use in professional or organized amateur sports activities, or when imported by non-residents for their use in providing live entertainment such as aquatic displays), when imported on a temporary basis, on condition that (a) the goods are not sold or further manufactured or processed in Canada; (a.1) the goods are not leased except where imported for use (i) in an emergency or emergency response training exercise, (ii) on loan pending delivery of new machinery or equipment on order, or (iii) as temporary replacements for machines or other equipment previously accounted for and undergoing repairs; (b) the use of the goods is specified by the importer at the time of reporting of the goods under the Customs Act, that use is not limited or restricted by regulation, and the goods are released for that specified use; (c) the goods are imported in no greater quantity than is reasonable, in the view of the Minister of National Revenue or a designated customs officer, for the use specified under paragraph (b); (d) the goods are accompanied, in prescribed circumstances, by prescribed documents and by security of a nature and in an amount satisfactory to the Minister of National Revenue or a designated customs officer, unless otherwise provided by regulation; (e) the goods are not diverted to a use that is limited or restricted by regulation, or to a use that would preclude the goods from being classified under this tariff item; and, (f) within eighteen months of the date of the reporting of the goods under the Customs Act or within any other period prescribed for those goods, the goods are: (i) exported from Canada and evidence, satisfactory to the Minister of National Revenue or a designated customs officer, of the exportation is provided to the Minister of National Revenue or the designated customs officer, |
| (ii) destroyed and the destruction is certified by a customs officer or by another person designated by the Minister of National Revenue, or (iii) consumed or expended under prescribed circumstances. |
Marchandises, autres que des moyens de transport, des conteneurs ou des bagages des nos tarifaires 9801.10.00 ou 9801.20.00, ou du Chapitre 89 (sauf lorsqu'elles sont importées pour réparation, remise en état, transformation, ajustement, entreposage, présentation lors d'une exposition mise sur pied par des fabricants semblables, pour des courses ou des essais, pour homologation par un organisme accrédité, pour être utilisées pour la production de films ou de messages publicitaires, à la suite d'une situation d'urgence ou d'un exercice de formation en intervention d'urgence, pour un transport en transit au Canada, ou comme échantillon commercial, lorsqu'elles sont importées par des équipes ou des athlètes non résidants, ou par leur personnel de soutien, pour être utilisées lors d'activités sportives, professionnelles ou amateur organisées, ou lorsqu'elles sont importées par des non-résidents pour être utilisées au cours de spectacles sur scène, comme des expositions aquatiques), importées à titre temporaire, à la condition que : a) les marchandises ne soient pas vendues ou ne fassent l'objet d'aucune transformation ultérieure au Canada; a.1) les marchandises ne soient pas louées, sauf si elles sont importées : (i) soit pour être utilisées en situation d'urgence ou pour un exercice de formation en intervention d'urgence, (ii) soit pour être prêtées en attendant la livraison de machines ou d'appareils neufs en commande, (iii) soit pour être utilisées en remplacement temporaire de machines ou autres appareils qui sont déjà déclarés en détail et qui subissent des réparations; b) l'usage auquel les marchandises sont destinées soit précis par l'importateur au moment de la déclaration conformément à la Loi sur les douanes, que cet usage ne soit pas limité ou restreint par un règlement, et que les marchandises soient dédouanées pour cet usage précis; c) la quantité de marchandises importées ne dépasse pas ce qui est raisonnable, selon le ministre du Revenu national ou un agent des douanes désigné, pour l'usage précis à l'alinéa b); d) les marchandises soient accompagnées, de la façon prescrite, par les documents requis et par une garantie de nature et d'un montant satisfaisants pour le ministre du Revenu national ou pour un agent des douanes désigné, à moins qu'il en soit autrement prescrit dans un règlement; e)les marchandises ne soient pas réaffectées à un usage limité ou restreint par un règlement ou à un usage qui les empêcherait d'être classées sous le présent numéro tarifaire; et, f) dans les dix-huit mois qui suivent leur déclaration conformément à la Loi sur les douanes ou dans tout autre délai prescrit pour elles, les marchandises : i) soient exportées du Canada et que des preuves satisfaisantes de leur exportation soient présentées au ministre du Revenu national ou à l'agent des douanes désigné, ii) soient détruites et que leur destruction soit certifiée par un agent des douanes ou par une autre personne désignée par le ministre du Revenu national, ou iii) soient consommées ou utilisées de la façon prescrite. |
[60] In my view paragraph 7(1)(e) of the Accounting for Imported Goods and Payment of Duties Regulations listing Tariff 9993.00, exempts the plaintiffs from further accounting. Therefore, the plaintiffs could not have breached section 32 of the Customs Act.
[61] As to section 89 of the Act, the defendant admitted that it bears no relevance in the present proceedings.
[62] Turning to section 122 of the Customs Act, I fail to see how it can be contravened in the present case. This section depicts the forfeiture of goods.
[63] I will deal next with both subsection 153(c) and section 155 of the Act.
[64] Subection 153(c) states:
| 153. No person shall: (c) wilfully, in any manner, evade or attempt to evade compliance with any provision of this Act or evade or attempt to evade the payment of duties under this Act. |
153. Il est interdit_: c) d'éluder ou de tenter d'éluder, délibérément et de quelque façon que ce soit, l'observation de la présente loi ou le paiement des droits qu'elle prévoit. |
[65] Section 155 provides that:
| 155. No person shall, without lawful authority or excuse, the proof of which lies on him, have in his possession, purchase, sell, exchange or otherwise acquire or dispose of any imported goods in respect of which the provisions of this or any other Act of Parliament that prohibits, controls or regulates the importation of goods have been contravened. |
155. Nul ne peut, sans autorisation ou excuse légitime don't la preuve lui incombe, avoir en sa possession, acheter, vendre, échanger ou, d'une façon générale, acquérir ou céder des marchandises importées ayant donné lieu à une infraction à la présente loi ou à toute autre loi fédérale prohibant, contrôlant ou réglementant les importations. |
[66] The plaintiff explained to this Court that he had no intention of importing the goods. They were temporarily relocated to Canada because the airport was sold. Customs officials were aware of this reason. An attempt was made to fly them back to the States resulted in failure due to the weather. The Court had the benefit of hearing the testimony of one of the pilot and accepts his testimony that upon encountering a bad storm, he decided to land in Smith Falls. Those were prudent actions on his part and Customs would not have required him to fly in the storm jeopardizing the pilots' lives.
[67] Having concluded that the plaintiffs were exempted from further accounting pursuant to the regulations, the offenses under subsection 153(c) and section 155 must necessarily fall.
[68] I am not convinced that the Act was breached.
[69] For these reasons, this action is allowed and the decision made by the defendant on June 11, 1997 in appeal matters referenced as Customs Appeal No. CS 5253/I-OT-1257, CS 5254/I-OT-1257-A; CS 5255/I-OT-1257-B; CS 5256/I-OT-1257-C, CS 5257/I-OT-1257-D; CS 1258/I-OT-1257F is set aside.
[70] With costs in favour of the plaintiffs.
Pierre Blais
Judge
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
August 31, 2000