Canada-U.S. Blog

Trade Lawyers Cyndee Todgham Cherniak and Susan K. Ross

Canadian Lawyers May Need The BC PST “Application For Clearance” Re Transactions Closing After April 1, 2013

Posted in Cross-border deals, Provincial Governments, Sales Taxes

When a business sells its assets by way for a sale in bulk (or the Bulk Sales Act applies), it does not do so in the normal course of its business.  Usually, one of the preconditions to closing a transaction (one of the vendor closing documents in an asset purchase) is a certification from the provincial sales tax authorities to the vendor that all provincial sales taxes have been paid or arrangement have been made by the vendor to pay the taxes. The vendor provides this certification to the purchaser.  When this certification is provided, the provincial sales tax authorities cannot pursue the purchaser for the unpaid provincial sales taxes of the vendor.  When this certification is not obtained, the provincial sales tax authorities may pursue the purchaser for the unpaid sales taxes of the vendor.

If an asset purchase transaction involves or includes assets located in British Columbia on the closing date, it may be necessary to obtain a clearance certificate from British Columbia.

The BC Ministry of Finance released FIN 447 “Application for Certification” on March 28, 2013.  Vendors use this form to submit their application for a certificate.  It may be completed to cover provincial sales taxes and other provincial indirect/commodity taxes (such as tobacco tax, motor fuel tax, carbon tax, social service tax, and hotel room tax).

What is most interesting about this form is that the lawyers for the purchaser may file the form (previously, the lawyers for the vendor were the the party who requested the clearance certificate and could not control the delivery).  While the vendor (person whose tax records are to be searched) must sign the form giving authorization for the search, the purchaser may be the submitter of the form and the party receiving the information.

Canada Border Services Agency Has Difficulties With Cross-Border Private Sales

Posted in Cross-border deals, Cross-border trade, Customs Law

When a Canadian resident purchases goods outside Canada, they must declare the goods when returning to Canada.  When the individual is over the exemption limit ($800 for stays outside Canada exceeding 48 hours, $50 for same day), they must pay applicable customs duties, GST/HST, excise taxes and other imposts and charges.

Many individuals purchase big ticket goods (such as motor vehicles, motor homes, ATVs, sailboats, motor boats, motor cycles, watercraft, etc.) by way of private sale using Craigslist and other Internet-based web-sites where people list stuff they would like to sell.  These transactions are legal and provide an opportunity to get big ticket goods for a lower ticket price. However, remember the old saying “if a deal seems too good to be true …”

Firstly, individuals MUST remember to declare these purchases. When they do not make a proper declaration to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), they risk criminal charges if the value exceeds a certain threshold. it is possible for the CBSA to lay criminal charges for smuggling and for the CBSA to seize the goods.  It is costly to defend such errors in judgement.

Even when the individual does declare the purchase, the CBSA may scrutinize these declarations. Often the buyer/importer does not have any documentation from the vendor.  The buyer pays cash and does not have any evidence of the price paid or payable.  In these circumstances, the CBSA will look on web-sites for a value and it often greatly exceeds what was actually paid.

Even when the buyer/importer has a sales invoice or receipt (or transfer paperwork), the CBSA is skeptical. Many CBSA officers have seen false invoices and, as a result, do not accept private sales invoices without further supporting documentation.  What buyers/importers do not realize is that they  have the onus of proving what they paid.

I recently had a client who gave the CBSA officers the name and telephone number of the vendor to allow the officers the opportunity to corroborate the price.  However, the CBSA officers would not call the vendors based on their belief that the vendors were not a reliable source of supplemental evidence.  The CBSA refusing to make a call to the vendors does not happen every time, but it is not a guarantee either.  The CBSA officers may believe that the buyer/importer and vendor conspired to falsify the invoice/paperwork and that the vendor would inform them that the buyer/importer paid the amount of the receipt/paperwork.

This is an unfortunate situation for honest individuals who like a good private sale deal.  The question is: what can they do to differentiate themselves from the bad guys who lied to the CBSA?  This is a hard question to answer.

The CBSA often asks to examine an iPhone or Blackberry or PDA or computer.  They do this looking for email exchanges with the vendors about the price. If they find emails concerning a price that is different than what was paid, this will raise red flags.  On the other hand, if there an email trail concerning the negotiation of the price, that is helpful.  I would recommend that all emails with the vendors be printed and bring a folder to the border. Also include the original listing / offer for sale even though it often is unrealistically high.  If you have that information organized and the CBSA does not have to look for it, the CBSA may accept your evidence.  That being said, the CBSA may also view an emails as self-serving.

Supporting documentation could come in the form of independent blue book values.  Some of these big ticket items are listed in blue books by make and model and year.  These third party businesses often include retail prices and values for the goods in good condition.  This evidence can be helpful.

Whether goods are in a good condition or in need of repair affects the price.  If the goods are not in prestine condition, documentation of the damage is necessary (not that the CBSA will always agree with you on the appropriate discount). I recommend writing a list of deficiencies in the goods/repairs suspected prior to reaching the border.  If the vendor will agree to sign the list, then it will demonstrate a mutual recognition.  The vendor may wish to indicate that sale is taking place on an “as is” basis so that any new problems do not become their problem. In any event, the list may be more complete if you take a moment before reaching the border.  Also, if there is a disagreement, you can leave a copy of your list and obtain an independent third party in Canada to corroborate after importation (such as an appraiser or repair shop).

Where possible, do not pay cash.  I say “where possible” because the final negotiation often is based on a face-to-face meeting and a visual inspection of the goods for damage. As a result, it is not always possible to bring a money order or bank draft.  Vendors often do not accept cheques because once the goods are gone, it is difficult to get paid if the cheque is bad. I recommend asking if the vendor uses PayPal because the transfer can be verified. That being said, the CBSA may also believe that a cash top-up was given.  The fact that these transactions re often cash transactions is the problem with private sales.

There is no magic information that the CBSA will accept with respect to private sales of big ticket items.  The more information you have, the better.  If you are an honest traveler and run into difficulties with a CBSA officer, ask to speak with the supervisor. Show how you have attempted to bring adequate documentation. Be prepared to give the vendor’s information to the CBSA. Be prepared to answer the hard questions.  Do not get angry if the CBSA asks questions. Be prepared to agree to disagree, pay the penalty and then appeal after more information can be gathered.

Canadian Legal Provisions Applicable to Laptop and PDA Examinations at the Border

Posted in Border Security, Customs Law

The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) takes the position that the Customs Act (Canada) grants them wide search and examination powers.  Section 98 of the Customs Act deals with search powers of the person. Section 99 of the Customs Act deals with examination powers respecting goods.  The CBSA draws a distinction between “search” powers in Section 98 and “examination” powers in Section 99.

The CBSA takes the position that NO GROUNDS are required to examine goods on a traveller.  There is no “reasonable grounds” requirement in Section 99.  The normal control covering examinations are:

1) The examination must be conducted in good faith to fulfill the obligations of the Customs Act; and

2) The CBSA cannot search on constitutionally impermissible grounds – manner of search.

It is important to note that the Section 99 of the Customs Act refers to “goods”.  The term “goods” is defined in Section 2 of the Customs Act to include “documents of any kind”.  An electronic document would be covered by that broad language.

Subsection 115(1) of the Customs Act provides

If any record is examined or seized under this Act, the Minister, or the officer by whom it is examined or seized, may make or cause to be made one or more copies of it …

Subsection 115(2) of the Customs Act provides that no record that has been seized as evidence under this Act shall be detained for a period of more than 3 months unless before the expiration of that period

(a) the person from whom it was seized agrees to its further detention for a specified period;

(b) a justice of the peace is satisfied on application that, having regard to the circumstances, its further detention for a specified period is warranted and he or she so orders; or

(c) judicial proceedings are instituted in which the seized record may be required.

 

Checklist for Tariff Classification?

Posted in Customs Law

Under Canada’s customs laws, the importer of record is responsible to provide the correct tariff classification of the commercial invoice and the B3 “Canada Customs Coding Form”.  While importers often rely on information provided by the exporter, they must do so understanding that they will have to pay the price for errors.  The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) may conduct a verification and determine that the tariff classification was incorrect.  If a tariff classification is incorrect, the duty rate may be incorrect and additional duties may be payable.  Whether or not additional duties are payable, the importer may be subject to an administrative monetary penalty.

We have created for clients a Tariff Classification Checklist, which are the documents/things we require in order to assist with the tariff classification of the goods:

1. The invoice, the purchase order & the contract – we need this to see how the goods are described in these documents because the tariff classification should be consistent with the description (and if the description is incorrect, it should be changed);

2. Promotional materials (e.g., product catalogues, brochures, web-based materials, etc.) – see 1 above;

3. A sample – a sample is always helpful;

4. If a sample cannot be provided, the packaging;

5. The technical drawings and/ or a listing of the bill or materials (a list of the parts/components);

6. The ingredient listing;

7. Documents filed with foreign government agencies where approvals are required (e.g., FDA filings);

8. A description of the manufacturing process – how the good is assembled/manufactured

9. Information from the inventor, R&D department, engineers concerning the use and purpose of the goods; and

10. Market analysis regarding buyers – who is the target market and how will they use the goods.

Depending on the specifics of a particular case, there may be other pertinent documents.

It is important to recognize that if the CBSA disagrees with the tariff classification selected and an appeal is filed with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, this information will have to be filed as evidence to assist the Tribunal in classifying the goods.  For this reason, all documents relating to the tariff classification of the goods (including legal opinions and legal instruments used in the tariff classification process) should be maintained in a record, such as a binder or an electronic folder.  You never know when you will need the information and it takes a lot of time to reconstruct the documentation years later.

 

 

 

Canada’s Sales Tax Rates (As at March 1, 2013)

Posted in GST/HST, Sales Taxes

Non-resident exporters/importers often are not aware of Canada’s many different sales taxes and sales tax rates (quite frankly, many Canadian companies cannot keep up with the changes). So, we put together a chart.

Canadian Sales Tax Rates Chart
As at March 1, 2013

Province/Territory

Provincial Sales Tax GST/HST Rate GST Included in PST Tax Base Combined Rate
British Columbia N/A[1] 12%[2] N/A 12%
Alberta Nil 5% N/A 5%
Saskatchewan 5% 5% No 10%
Manitoba 7% 5% No 12%
Ontario N/A 13% N/A 13%
Quebec 9.975%[3] 5% N/A 14.975%
New Brunswick N/A 13% N/A 13%
Nova Scotia N/A 15% N/A 15%
Newfoundland/Labrador N/A 13% N/A 13%
Prince Edward Island 10%[6] 5%[7] Yes[8] 15.5%[9]
Northwest Territories Nil 5% N/A 5%
Yukon Nil 5% N/A 5%
Nunavut Nil 5% N/A 5%

[1] British Columbia will reinstate provincial sales tax on April 1, 2013 at a rate of 7%

[2] On April 1, 2013, the GST/HST rate will decrease to 5% because British Columbia is de-harmonizing

[3] Quebec harmonized with GST on January 1, 2013.

[4] On January 1, 2013, the Amended QST, GST rate will be 14.975%

[5] Starting January 1, 2013 there will no longer be tax on tax

[6] Prince Edward Island will harmonize with GST on April 1, 2013. The proposed rate will be 14%.

[7] Prince Edward Island will harmonize with the GST on April 1, 2013 and impose HST at the rate of 14%

[8] Starting on April 1, 2013, there will no longer be tax on tax

[9] Will reduce to 14% on April 1, 2013

 

2013 Economic Action Plan (2013 Budget) Removes Tariffs On Certain Consumer Goods

Posted in Customs Law

On March 21, 2013, Canada introduced the 2013 Budget.  While the 2013 Budget was characterized as an austerity budget, it offered customs duty relief (hopefully translating into lower retail prices) on certain imported consumer goods.

The 2013 Budget permanently removed customs duties  on baby clothes and sports equipment (excluding bicycles, which I should note have been subject to anti-dumping duties for 20 years when originating in or exported from China or Taiwan).  Tariffs on these goods ranged from 2.5% to 20% and are being removed/reduced to “Free”effective April 1, 2013 (not an April Fool’s joke).  When a duty rate is “Free”, it does not mean the goods will be free in the stores (I have been asked this).

This is good news for importers of goods in respect of which the following H.S. Codes are applicable:

  • 4203.21.10 / 4203.21.90 – certain leather sports gloves (for cricket, golf, baseball and other)
  • 6111.20.00 / 6111.30.00 / 6111.90.00 – certain babies garments
  • 6209.20.00 / 6209.30.00 / 6209.90.90 – certain babies garments
  • 6401.92.92 – certain plastic sandals
  • 6402.12.20 / 6402.12.30 / 6403.12.20 / 6403.12.30 – cross country ski footwear and snowboard boots (downhill ski boots already duty free)
  • 9506.11.90 / 9506.12.00 / 9506.19.00 – skis, fastenings & bindings, ski poles, snow boards
  • 9506.21.00 / 9506.29.00 – water-skis, sailboards, surf boards, and other water sports equipment
  • 9506.31.00 / 9506.32.10 / 9506.32.90 / 9506.39.20 / 9506.39.30  / 9506.39.90 – golf clubs, golf balls and related golf equipment
  • 9506.40.00 – articles and equipment for table tennis / ping pong
  • 9506.62.90 – inflatable balls, like dodge balls
  • 9506.69.10 / 9506.69.90 – cricket balls, croquet balls, lawn bowling balls, squash balls, racket balls, etc.
  • 9506.70.11 / 9506.70.12 – ice skates and roller skates
  • 9506.91.90 – exercise / fitness equipment and gymnastics equipment, including trampolines and other
  • 9506.99.20 – hockey sticks and parts thereof and curling stones and clay pigeons
  •  9506.99.31 – automated batting cages, clay target throwing machines, soft ball / hard ball throwing machines
  • 9506.99.40 – cricket bats and leg pads
  •  9506.99.50 – protective pads and guards for ice hockey and fields hockey and other (except football)
  • 9506.99.90 – archery equipment, above ground swimming pools and wading pools, playground equipment, snowshoes, bobsleds, toboggans, etc.

This budget measure should make many Canadians happy.

Top Fifteen Questions To Ask Prior To Importing Goods Into Canada

Posted in Border Security, Cross-border trade, Customs Law, Export Controls & Economic Sanctions, GST/HST, Sales Taxes

We thought it would be helpful to provide our top fifteen questions to ask and answer prior to importing goods into Canada. We started with a top ten list and then decided to give a 50% bonus.

1. What is the tariff classification of the goods to be imported (the answer can be simple or difficult depending on the goods)?

2. Are the goods a prohibited importation and, therefore, they are inadmissible for entry into Canada?

3. What is the value for duty of the goods to be imported (the answer often is not straight-forward as a hierarchy of valuation methodologies may have to be applied)?

4. What is the country of origin of the goods to be imported (is there a certificate of origin)?

5. What is the applicable tariff rate and is there a preferential tariff rate due to the applicability of a free trade agreement?

6. Who is the importer of record and are they able to recover federal goods and services tax paid at the border?

7. Does the importer of record have an import (RM) number?

8. Is unrecoverable provincial sales tax and/or harmonized sales tax payable at the border?

9. Are the goods subject to an Order of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and are anti-dumping and/or countervailing duties payable at the border?

10. Are the goods subject to excise tax or other charges payable at the border?

11. Are any permits, certificates or declarations required prior to the importation of the goods into Canada? Are any permits, certificates or declarations required with respect to use of the goods in Canada?

12. Are the goods subject to labeling and marking requirements?

13. Are the goods subject to product standards requirements?

14. Are the goods subject to restrictions under Canadian federal  (e.g., consumer protection laws) or provincial laws (environmental restrictions, transportation restrictions)?

15. Do you have documentation to support the answers to the above questions?

Canada Has Taken Steps To Empower Customs Officials To Stop Counterfeit Goods At The Border

Posted in Canada's Federal Government, Cross-border litigation, Cross-border trade, Customs Law, Intellectual Property

On March 1, 2013, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-56 “Combating Counterfeit Products Act” in the House of Commons. Bill C-56 provides copyright and trademark owners with a Canadian legal process to stop the import and export of counterfeit goods and take those goods out of the commercial stream. This legal process is an important step forward.

Bill C-56 amends the Trade-marks Act and the Copyright Act to empower Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) officials to proactively target, detain and examine counterfeit goods at the Canadian border (whether imported into Canada or exported from Canada).  Once Bill C-56 is passed into law, the trade-mark rights and/or copyright rights holders(s) may seek the assistance of the CBSA by filing a “request for assistance” in the form and manner to be specified by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness (the Minister to whom the CBSA reports). The substance of the “request for assistance” is a request to detain goods that are believed to be counterfeit. The request must include the trade-mark and/or copyright owner’s name and address in Canada and any other information required by the Minister, including information about the work or other subject-matter in question.  Undoubtedly, the owner will be required to provide information to demonstrate his/her owners and sufficient information to permit the CBSA officers to detain the alleged counterfeit goods.  For example, the trade-mark and/ or copyright owner would be required to provide samples of the goods they manufacture.

The CBSA will review the “request for assistance” and has the discretion whether or not to accept it.  The Minister Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness technically would be the person accepting the request for assistance under the proposed rules. the Minister may impose conditions of the acceptance of a request, such as the trade-mark and/ or copyright owner may be required to post security in an amount to be determined by the Minister.

A “request for assistance” would be valid for a period of two years beginning on the day it is accepted by the Minister (and may be extended every two years). If after the “request for assistance” is granted the ownership or substance of the trade-mark or copyright changes, trade-mark and/ or copyright owner must inform  the Minister in writing.

After the “request for assistance” is accepted, the CBSA may detain any goods that are the subject matter of the request.  The CBSA has the discretion to provide a sample of the detained goods to trade-mark and/ or copyright owner and any information about the copies that the CBSA officer reasonably believes does not directly or indirectly identify any person.  The CBSA may also permit the trade-mark and/or copyright owner to inspect the detained goods.  The trade-marks and/ or copyright owner will be given up to 10 days (5 days for perishable goods) to commence court proceedings to obtain a remedy under the Act.  If trade-mark and/ or copyright owner does not commence proceedings, the detained goods will be released.

Bill C-56 also creates a new civil remedy for trade-mark and/ or copyright owner(s) to pursue the infringer for monetary damages. Bill C-56 also sets out new criminal offenses and permits the court to impose fines up to $1,000,000 and/or imprisonment up to five years.

Bill C-56 will be closely watched.  Trade-mark and/or copyright owners may start to prepare their “requests for assistance” so that action may be taken when BillC-56 becomes law.

Canadian Resident NEXUS Travelers Should Bring Traveller Declaration Card to Report Purchases to CBSA

Posted in Border Security, Customs Law, NEXUS

Many NEXUS card holders in the Trusted Traveler Program are not aware that there are electronic forms available on-line that they can complete prior to returning to Canada with their purchases.  The declaration process is simplified by the NEXUS Traveller Declaration Card (TDC).  Canadian residents who are members of the trusted traveler programs may complete this form to declare goods purchased and/or acquired outside Canada and must give the completed TDC to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).  At many land border crossings, there is a secure deposit box in which to submit the completed forms in the NEXUS lane.

The TDC may be completed on-line (and printed in hard copy) or may be completed manually in black pen (the CBSA specifically states a black pen must be used). For more information, please refer to the CBSA web-site.

Please note that the TDC form cannot be used if the traveler is returning to Canada with tobacco products (such as cigars (non-duty paid/duty free, cigarettes (non-duty paid/duty free), cigarillos and tobacco sticks).

I recommend that frequent travelers keep a number of blank printed forms in their glove compartment or in a brief case.  The electronic form is downloadable and can be saved on a laptop with the information that stays the same (e.g., name, address, date of birth, identification, etc.). The main difficulty I find with the on-line form is finding a printer when I am traveling.

I should mention that I have clients who have completed and submitted the forms in the secure deposit box.  The problem is that the CBSA officer in the NEXUS lane usually did not see them deposit the TDC in the deposit box.  It would be helpful to inform the CBSA officer of the deposit of the forms if you are sent for a random secondary inspection as it may prevent misunderstandings.

Canadian International Trade Tribunal’s Jurisdiction Clarified

Posted in Customs Law

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether the Canada Border Services Agency’s recapture of refunded customs duties is valid. In other words, if the CBSA issues a detailed adjustment statement (DAS) to claw back a refund, the affected importer may have a grounds for appeal if the DAS is issued too late.

In the June 1, 2012 decision in Grodan Inc. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency (AP-2011-031), the Tribunal held it has jurisdiction beyond deciding matters of origin, valuation and tariff classification.

In this case, Grodan imported goods and used a tariff classification that resulted in duties being payable.  Grodan filed B2 amendments after it determined that it was entitled to duty-free treatment under H.S. code 9903.00.00.  The CBSA accepted the voluntary amendments and paid a refund of customs duties.  More than 48 months later, the CBSA took the position H.S. code 9903.00.00 was not available and issued a DAS to recover the refunded customs duties.  Grodan filed an appeal with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

The Department of Justice argued that the Canadian International Trade Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider whether the DASs were statute barred as beyond a 4 year limitation period.

In considering the scope of its own jurisdiction, the Tribunal noted:

  • The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited by statute, whether explicitly or implicitly;
  • Parliament intended to confer on the Tribunal broad appellate jurisdiction;
  • The Tribunal’s authority is not limited merely to the narrow substantive question of correct tariff classification, origin or value for duty of imported goods;
  • The Tribunal  may make such order, finding or declaration as the nature of the matter require;
  • The duties and functions of the Tribunal are, inter alia, to hear, determine and deal with all appeals … and all matters relating thereto;
  • The Tribunal has authority to determine not only the correctness of a decision made under Section 60 but also its validity; and
  • The Tribunal’s jurisdiction extends to jurisdictional matters.

On the issue of the Tribunal’s authority to make determinations relating to jurisdiction, the Tribunal held:

If a tariff classification decision made under Section 60 of the [Customs Act] is not correct on the merits, then it cannot stand.  Likewise, if it is not valid on jurisdictional grounds, it should not stand. As such, the Tribunal is of the view that the validity of a decision under section 60 is a matter “related” to the correctness of such a decision and, therefore, the Tribunal is authorized to “deal with” it by making ‘…such order, finding or declaration as the nature of the matter require ….”

The Tribunal stated “[t]he Tribunal will not countenance an unjust outcome.”  In the Groban case, the Tribunal held that the DASs were invalid because they had been issued more than 48 months after the deemed determination under subsection 58(2) of the Customs Act that occurred when the voluntary amends were filed.

This case is important because some aggrieved importers may incorrectly believe they have no legal redress when the CBSA makes an decision that is not a tariff classification, origin or valuation decision.