Pinard,
J.:—This
is
a
claim
on
behalf
of
the
plaintiff
to
recover
different
amounts
from
the
defendants
pursuant
to
provisions
of
the
Customs
Act,
R.S.C.
1970,
c.
C-41,
for
customs
duties,
excise
tax
and
forfeiture
or
penalty.
As
a
result
of
a
previous
order
of
this
Court,
this
matter
was
heard
together
and
on
common
evidence
with
Action
No.
T-4981-80
(Her
Majesty
the
Queen
v.
Executive
Stereotronics
Limited
et
al.).
The
defendant
Ruby
Pahmer
is
and
was
at
all
material
times
the
sole
shareholder,
sole
director
and
sole
officer
of
the
defendant
Executive
Stereotronics
Limited;
she
is
and
was
also
the
spouse
of
the
defendant
Ervin
Pahmer.
The
latter
was
employed
by
the
defendant
Ruby
Pahmer
on
behalf
of
the
defendant
Executive
Stereotronics
Limited
as
manager.
Both
Ruby
Pahmer
and
Ervin
Pahmer
operated
Executive
Stereotronics
Limited.
The
plaintiff
alleges
that
the
defendants
Ruby
Pahmer
and
Ervin
Pahmer
entered
into
and
carried
out
a
scheme
for
bringing
into
Canada
goods
and
undervaluing
them
for
the
purpose
of
escaping
customs
and
excise
duties,
thereby
defrauding
Her
Majesty
the
Queen.
The
plaintiff
also
alleges
that
the
defendants
Ervin
Pahmer
and
Ruby
Pahmer
together
caused
the
defendant
Executive
Stereotronics
Limited
to
participate
in
such
a
scheme,
this
corporation
having
been
used
by
the
personal
defendants
“as
their
agent
for
perpetrating
this
scheme
with
the
intent
of
shielding
them
personally
from
liability
for
their
improper
conduct?"
More
specifically,
the
plaintiff
contends
that
during
the
period
commencing
on
or
about
the
15th
day
of
March
1973
and
ending
on
or
about
the
1st
day
of
December
1975,
the
defendants
caused
to
be
imported
and
imported
into
Canada
certain
goods,
for
the
purpose
of
resale,
including
electronic
parts
and
equipment;
the
plaintiff
submits
that
the
defendants
passed
and
caused
to
be
passed
false
invoices
in
respect
of
the
said
goods
through
the
customs
house
and
did
thereby
defraud
the
plaintiff
by
avoiding
payment
of
part
of
the
duties.and
sales
taxes
properly
payable
on
the
said
goods
contrary
to
the
provisions
of
paragraphs
192(1)(b)
and
(c)
of
the
Customs
Act.
The
plaintiff
therefore
claimed
as
follows:
(a)
the
amount
of
$30,829.28
by
way
of
forfeiture
as
against
the
defendant
Executive
Stereotronics
Limited;
(b)
the
amount
of
$10,339.07
as
sales
tax
and
duty
unpaid
as
against
the
defendants
Ruby
Pahmer
and
Ervin
Pahmer;
(c)
the
costs
of
this
action;
and
(d)
such
further
and
other
relief
as
this
Court
may
seem
just.
As
neither
of
the
two
personal
defendants
filed
a
defence,
judgment
by
default
in
the
amount
of
$10,339.07
was
granted
earlier
by
this
Court
to
the
plaintiff
against
the
defendant
Ruby
Pahmer.
At
the
beginning
of
the
trial,
counsel
for
the
plaintiff
filed
an
application
for
judgment
for
default
of
pleadings
against
the
defendant
Ervin
Pahmer
and
the
Court
then
indicated
that
it
would
dispose
of
that
application
at
the
same
time
it
would
render
judgment
in
the
present
case.
At
trial,
after
the
plaintiff
had
completed
adducing
evidence
in
support
of
her
case,
there
was
no
evidence
led
by
the
defendant
Executive
Stereotronics
Limited,
whose
attorney
or
solicitor
on
the
record
chose
not
to
attend.
As
for
the
defendant
Ervin
Pahmer,
he
was
present
and
confirmed
that
he
was
neither
opposing
nor
disputing
the
claim
made
against
him
personally.
The
customs
officers
who
testified
for
the
plaintiff
produced
invoices,
charts
and
work
sheets
and
explained
in
some
detail
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
Court
how
their
calculations
were
made.
The
defendants
were
charged
with
additional
customs
duty
and
sales
tax
on
the
goods
actually
imported,
on
the
basis
of
the
difference
in
value
of
those
goods
shown
on
the
original
invoices
from
those
shown
on
the
invoices
on
the
M-A
forms
produced
to
customs.
No
explanation
was
given
by
or
for
the
defendants
that
could
have
impeached
the
credibility
of
the
customs
officers,
whose
evidence
I
accept
as
being
truthful,
forthright,
disinterested,
and
supported
by
the
documents
in
evidence
and
the
sequence
of
events.
Furthermore,
the
documents
filed
in
evidence
establish
clearly
the
facts
as
alleged
by
the
plaintiff
in
paragraphs
13
to
19
inclusive
of
her
amended
statement
of
claim.
Finally,
as
shown
by
the
parts
of
the
defendant
Ervin
Pahmer’s
examination
for
discovery
used
in
evidence,
Ervin
Pahmer
admitted
clearly
his
participation
with
Executive
Stereotronics
Limited
in
a
scheme
for
bringing
into
the
country
goods
and
undervaluing
them
for
the
purpose
of
escaping
customs
and
excise
duties.
Consequently,
considering
the
strong
evidence
adduced
by
the
plaintiff,
considering
the
total
failure
by
the
defendants
to
adduce
any
kind
of
credible
evidence,
considering
subsection
2(3)
and
sections
247
and
248
of
the
Customs
Act,
judgment
will
be
rendered
as
follows:
(a)
in
the
amount
of
$30,829.28
as
against
the
defendant
Executive
Stereotronics
Limited;
(b)
in
the
amount
of
$10,339.07
as
against
the
defendant
Ervin
Pahmer,
jointly
and
severally
with
the
defendant
Ruby
Pahmer
already
condemned
to
pay
the
same
amount
by
judgment
for
default
of
pleadings;
(c)
with
costs
against
the
defendants
Executive
Stereotronics
Limited
and
Ervin
Pahmer.
Order
accordingly.
Email this Content