(Canada.com) Canadian authorities impose a $1,300 fine on Eritrean man for importing Eritrean stools

From: Biniam Tekle <biniamt_at_dehai.org_at_dehai.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 22:00:40 -0400

 http://www.canada.com/News/ottawa/Tribunal+upholds+fine+imposed+Ottawa+airport+importing+Eritrean/10921939/story.html


Tribunal upholds $1,300 fine imposed at Ottawa airport for importing
Eritrean stools




BY DON BUTLER, OTTAWA CITIZEN, OTTAWA CITIZEN MARCH 26, 2015

When Samuel Gebreyesus arrived at Ottawa Airport last July, he had
four traditional Eritrean wooden stools covered with cow skins in his
luggage. They were a gift from family members in Eritrea, where
Gebreyesus had gone for his brother’s funeral.

The Winnipeg taxi driver declared the stools at customs, assigning
them a value of $150. He also marked “no” on his declaration card
where it asked if he was importing any animal products or byproducts.

That turns out to have been a costly mistake. In a March 18 decision,
the Canada Agricultural Review Tribunal upheld a $1,300 fine imposed
by the Canada Border Services Agency for failing to declare he was
importing animal byproducts. The CBSA also confiscated the stools and
has not returned them.

In his decision, tribunal chair Don Buckingham directly addressed the
question of whether wooden stools covered with animal hides constitute
an animal byproduct.

“One might wonder at what point pieces of wood covered with animal
hides – items as diverse as wooden stools from Eritrea to expensive
leather sofas from Italy – cease to be animal byproducts and become
furniture,” he said.

He also acknowledged that “this legitimate question” appears to have
been in Gebreyesus’ mind when he told the tribunal he did not declare
the stools as animal byproducts because it didn’t occur to him that
they were.

Buckingham said there may be a point at which it could become
difficult for the CBSA to prove that a piece of finished furniture
made of wood and leather met the legal definition of an animal
byproduct.

“But this is not such a case,” he said. “While Gebreyesus might well
have believed what he was importing was furniture, he was (under the
law) also importing an animal byproduct.”

With apparent reluctance, Buckingham upheld the $1,300 fine imposed on
Gebreyesus, saying the tribunal had no authority to waive or reduce it
for humanitarian or compassionate reasons.

He said the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administration Monetary
Penalties Act gave Gebreyesus “little room to mount a defence.”

It excludes “practically any excuse” a traveller might raise, he said,
including the fact that Gebreyesus “honestly believed he had declared
the stools when he included their value as part of the total monetary
value of his imports that he listed on his declaration card.”

Gebreyesus, who emigrated to Canada in 1993, was beside himself when
informed of the tribunal’s decision by the Citizen. At the February
hearing, he said, Buckingham “told me he was convinced by me. I don’t
know why he changed his mind.”

Gebreyesus said the four stools were “very, very important” to him
because they were gifts intended to help him remember his late
brother. At his hearing, he asked the tribunal to order their return
to him, but Buckingham said he had no jurisdiction to do that.

Gebreyesus, who called the tribunal’s decison “unfair,” said paying
the fine would be hard for him because he has little money. Buckingham
gave him 30 days to pay.

dbutler_at_ottawacitizen.com

twitter.com/ButlerDon
Received on Thu Mar 26 2015 - 22:01:19 EDT

Dehai Admin
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2013
All rights reserved