Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff failed to declare two high-value wine bottles, triggering a seizure under the Customs Act.

• Credibility of Border Services Officers was challenged due to incomplete or erroneous paperwork.

• The Court upheld that intent, forgetfulness, or good faith are irrelevant under strict Customs Act obligations.

• Evidence showed Plaintiff was given a full opportunity to declare all goods before enforcement actions began.

• BSOs’ procedural lapses did not undermine the legality of the seizure or the fairness of the process.

• Plaintiff bore the legal burden to prove the seizure was unlawful and did not meet that threshold.

Facts and outcome of the case

The facts
Yucheng Su, a 26-year-old permanent resident of Canada, crossed into Canada at the Douglas port of entry in Surrey, British Columbia on November 12, 2021, after visiting his cousin in Renton, Washington. He declared 13 bottles of wine and one package of cigarettes at the primary inspection booth and provided receipts totaling approximately $1,487.50 USD. He was then referred to secondary inspection.

During the secondary inspection, two additional bottles of high-value wine—each worth over $5,000 CAD—were found separately stored in the vehicle. These were not declared. Mr. Su explained that he had forgotten about them and that they were gifts from his cousin. A Canada Border Services Officer (BSO) determined that the undeclared bottles contravened section 12 of the Customs Act. They were seized, and Mr. Su paid duty on the declared wine.

Mr. Su applied for a review under section 129 of the Customs Act, but the CBSA Recourse Directorate upheld the seizure. He then launched a statutory appeal under section 135 of the Act, arguing procedural unfairness and errors in the seizure process.

The outcome
Justice Pentney of the Federal Court dismissed the appeal. The Court found that although the BSOs made some procedural errors, such as failing to enter certain information correctly on forms, their evidence regarding the key facts of the inspection was credible and consistent. The Court emphasized that under the Customs Act, the duty to declare is strict—errors or forgetfulness do not excuse non-disclosure. Furthermore, Mr. Su had multiple opportunities to make a full declaration and failed to do so.

The Court ruled that Mr. Su had not met the legal burden of proving the seizure was unlawful or procedurally unfair. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

The parties had agreed in advance on a costs arrangement. Accordingly, the Court ordered Mr. Su to pay $10,000 CAD in all-inclusive costs to the Defendant.