THE
PRESIDENT
:—With
one
difference,
the
issues
in
these
two
cases
are
similar
to
those
in
The
King
v.
Weddel
Limited,
in
which
judgment
for
the
plaintiff
has
just
been
given.
In
each
case,
the
defendant
during
1940,
1941
and
1942
imported
into
Canada
large
quantities
of
canned
corned
beef
from
countries
in
South
America
and
paid
customs
duties
based
on
the
values
at
which
the
goods
were
entered
for
customs.
Subsequently,
early
in
1943,
it
being
considered
that
the
importations
had
been
undervalued,
the
Chief
Dominion
Customs
appraiser
made
fresh
appraisals
of
the
value
of
the
imported
goods.
In
the
case
of
the
defendant
Watt
&
Scott
(Toronto)
Ltd.,
these
were
at
$348,780
in
excess
of
those
at
which
they
had
been
entered
for
duty
and
the
appraiser
directed
the
defendant
to
make
amended
entries
and
pay
additional
customs
duty
and
taxes
amounting
to
$167,157.68.
In
the
case
of
the
defendant
Tees
&
Persse
Limited,
the
excess
values
found
on
the
fresh
appraisals
amounted
to
$131,947
and
the
amount
of
additional
duty
and
taxes
directed
to
be
paid
on
the
amended
entries
came
to
$63,955.18.
Protests
against
these
appraisals
were
made
to
the
Department
of
National
Revenue
and
eventually
the
matter
was
referred
to
the
Minister
of
National.
Revenue.
He
followed
the
same
steps
as
he
took
in
the
Weddel
Limited
case
and
finally,
on
August
19,
1943,
made
a
determination
of
the
value
for
duty
of
the
canned
corned
beef
imported
by
each
defendant
during
1940
to
1942
in
terms
similar
to.
his
determination
in
the
Weddel
Limited
case.
The
amount
of
additional
customs
duty
and
taxes
found
payable
by
the
defendants
as
the
result
of
these
determinations
was,
in
the
case
of
the
defendant
Watt
&
Scott
(Toronto)
Ltd.,
the
sum
of
$158,215.18
and,
in
the
case
of
the
defendant
Tees
&
Persse
Limited,
the
sum
of
$68,825.30.
On
the
refusal
of
the
defendants
to
pay
any
additional
duty
or
taxes
these
actions
were
brought,
the
plaintiff,
in
each
case,
claiming
the
additional
amount
of
customs
duty
and
taxes
resulting
from
the
determination
of
the
Minister
purporting,
to
act
under
section
41
of
the
Customs
Act,
R.S.C.
1927,
chap.
42,
and
amendments,
and,
in
the
alternative,
the
additional
amount
resulting
from
the
appraisal
by
the
Chief
Dominion
Customs
appraiser
purporting
to
act
under
section
48.
The
difference
between
the
present
cases
and
the
Weddel
Limited
case
is
that
Weddel
Limited
imported
the
canned
corned
beef
as
owner
thereof,
whereas
each
of
the
present
defendants
was
an
agent
of
an
Argentine
company,
Frigorifico
Armour
de
la
Plata,
of
Buenos
Aires,
the
owner
of
the
goods,
and
received
the
goods
on
consignment
as
selling
agents
for
such
owner,
the
defendant
Watt
&
Seott
(Toronto)
Ltd.
being
the
sales
representative
of
Frigorifico
Armour
de
la
Plata
for
Eastern
Canada,
and
the
defendant
Tees
&
Persse
Limited
being
it
sales
representative
for
Western
Canada.
Each
of
the
defendants
denies
that
it
was
the
importer
of
the
goods
or
liable
for
customs
duty,
it
being
alleged
that
the
importer
was
Frigorifico
Armour
de
la
Plata,
the
owner
of
the
goods,
and
that
the
defendant
was
merely
consignee
of
the
goods
as
selling
agent
for
the
owner.
I
have
come
to
the
conclusion
that
this
difference
does
not
free
the
defendants
from
liability.
Section
112
of
the
Customs
Act
provides
as
follows
:
112.
The
true
amounts
of
Customs
duties
payable
to
His
Majesty
with
respect
to
any
goods
imported
into
Canada
or
exported
therefrom
shall,
from
and
after
the
time
when
such
duties
should
have
been
paid
or
accounted
for,
constitute
a
debt
due
and
payable
to
His
Majesty,
jointly
and
severally,
from
the
owner
of
the
goods
at
the
time
of
the
importation
or
exportation
thereof,
and
from
the
importer
or
exporter
thereof,
as
the
case
may
be
;
.
.
.
and
section
2(m)
provides:
2.
In
this
Act,
or
in
any
other
law
relating
to
the
Customs,
unless
the
context
otherwise
requires,
(m)
owner”,
‘‘importer’’,
or
‘‘exporter’’
includes
any
person
lawfully
acting
on
behalf
of
the
owner,
importer
or
exporter
;
The
evidence
is
conclusive
that
each
of
the
defendants
lawfully
acted
on
behalf
of
its
principal
in
clearing
the
imported
goods
through
customs.
The
customs
brokers
of
each
defendant,
acted
for
it
and
in
accordance
with
its
instructions.
The
defendant,
in
each
ease,
paid
the
necessary
customs
duties
and
taxes
in
order
to
obtain
possession
of
the
goods
of
which
it
took
delivery
in
its
own
name,
and
was
then
re-imbursed
by
its
principal
in
accordance
with
the
agency
and
consignment
agreement
between
it
and
its
principal.
Whether
Frigorifico
Armour
de
la
Plata
was
the
owner
or
importer
of
the
goods
makes
no
difference
for
each
defedant
lawfully
acted
on
its
behalf
in
clearing
the
goods
through
customs
and
thus
completing
their
importation.
Moreover,
on
the
Customs
forms
on
which
the
goods
were
entered
for
home
consumption
it
was
stated,
in
each
case,
that
the
goods
were
imported
by
the
defendant.
Thus
the
defendant
not
only
lawfully
acted
for
the
owner
of
the
goods
but
was
itself
a
de
facto
importer
of
them.
It
would,
I
think,
be
estopped
from
contending
that
it
was
not
the
importer
when
it
put
forward
an
entry
stating
that
the
goods
were
imported
by
it
and
thus
obtained
possession
of
them.
It
was
urged
that,
because
of
the
broad
terms
of
section
112,
making
the
owner
of
the
goods
and
their
importer
or
exporter
jointly
and
severally
liable
for
the
customs
duties
payable
on
them,
the
definition
of
section
2(m)
should
not
apply.
I
see
no
reason
why
it
should
not
do
so.
There
is
nothing
in
the
context
to
render
the
definition
inapplicable
and
each
defendant
comes
clearly
within
its
terms.
It
is
part
of
the
scheme
of
the
Act
that,
whoever
is
the
owner
of
the
imported
goods
and
wherever
such
owner
may
be,
there
shall
be
somebody
in
Canada
who
may
be
assessed
for
duty
in
respect
of
them,
whether
as
agent
for
the
owner
or
importer,
or
as
an
importer
or
de
facto
importer.
Each
defendant
was
in
such
a
position.
I
conclude,
therefore,
that
when
goods
are
imported
into
Canada
consigned
to
a
selling
agent
for
their
owner
and
the
agent
acts
for
the
owner
in
clearing
them
through
customs
and
enters
them
as
being
imported
by
himself,
such
agent
is
liable
for
the
customs
duty
and
taxes
payable
in
respect
of
them.
The
defendants
are,
therefore,
in
the
same
position
in
the
matter
of
liability
as
was
the
defendant
in
The
King
v.
Weddel
Limited
(supra),
and
the
reasons
for
judgment
in
that
case
are,
mutatis
mutandis,
incorporated
herein.
In
each
case,
the
Minister
acted
within
his
jurisdiction
in
the
determination
of
value
for
duty
made
by
him,
the
determination
is
referrable
to
the
canned
corned
beef
imported
by
the
defendant
during
1940,
1941
and
1942
and
the
defendant
is
liable
for
the
amount
of
additional
customs
duty
and
taxes
found
by
the
Minister
to
be
payable.
There
will,
therefore,
be
judgment
for
the
plaintiff
against
the
defendant
Watt
&
Scott
(Toronto)
Ltd.
for
$158,215.18
and
costs;
and
judgment
for
the
plaintiff
against.
the
defendant
Tees
&
Persse
Limited
for
$68,825.30
and
costs.
Judgments
accordingly.
Email this Content