The CBSA and USCBP remind the business traveler of a short statement in the brochures (NEXUS Membership Guide) about NEXUS privileges that travelers cannot use the NEXUS lane when they have commercial goods. The instructions state:

One business traveler had a sample of a ware in his briefcase and informed the border officer.  One business traveler in the jewelry business returned to Canada with a piece of jewelry and inputted information in the automated kiosk the value of that item.  One business traveler purchased business cards overseas (with certain information translated). One business traveler was returning to Canada with banners used in a trade show in the United States.  One business traveler was going to a convention in the United States with a box of brochures.  All these business travelers had their NEXUS cards confiscated.

I have heard from individuals whose NEXUS cards were confiscated at the border crossing.  Some received a letter from the NEXUS program and some do not. Other individuals do not have their NEXUS cards taken at the border and receive a warning letter in the mail.  The use of discretion is sometimes at zero tolerance and is sometimes a little more flexible.

Business travelers must be careful because their NEXUS card is a valuable time-saving asset.  When in doubt, use the long line up.  Using it once is better than having to use the long line up every trip for 7 years.  Another option is to courier commercial goods because the customs paperwork will be completed by the courier company.

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.

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 on-line 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 electronic 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.

These amendments are long awaited and strengthen the teeth of the CFPOA. These amendments must pass the Senate and then the House of Commons in order to become law.

The CFPOA makes it a criminal offence in Canada for persons or companies to bribe a foreign public official in order to obtain or retain an advantage in the course of international business. The CFPOA has been law in Canada since 1998. 

When the amendments to the CFPOA are passed, Canadian businesses will be subject to many of the rules in place in the United States and the UK.

The amendments contain a provision to entrench the nationality principle.  The Canadian Government will be able be able to prosecute Canadians and Canadian businesses for bribery undertaken on foreign soil.  The Government of Canada will exercise jurisdiction over Canadians and Canadian companies on the basis of nationality regardless of where the offending activity transpired.

The amendments contain a provision to phase out the facilitation payment exception. The CFPOA currently contains an exception that allows payments that are made to facilitate acts of a routine nature by foreign public officials. An example of a facilitation payment is a payment to a customs official to clear goods more quickly. Cabinet will fix a date in the future when such facilitation payments can no longer be made.  In other words, there will be one less basis to excuse payments made to a foreign public official.

The amendments clarify that all businesses are subject to the provisions of the CFPOA.  The words 'for profit" in the definition of "business" are being removed.  This amendment removes an argument that NGOs could use. The amendment also removes an argument that business could attempt that the bribery does not count (is not punishable) if it was not taken in the context of a business venture.

The amendments adds a new books and records offence similar to the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. New Section 4 of the CFPOA provides that every person commits an offense who for the purpose of bribing a foreign public official in order to obtain or retain an advantage in the course of a business or for the purpose of hiding that bribery either:

This offence will now be punishable by a maximum jail term of 14 years and is unlimited in terms of the amount of a fine.

The amendments also increase the maximum penalty under the CFPOA.  The current maximum jail term is 5 years.  The new maximum jail term is 14 years.

For more information, please refer to the documents released by the Government of Canada - http://www.international.gc.ca/media/aff/news-communiques/2013/02/05b.aspx?view=d

To date, there have been three convictions under the CFPOA:

• Griffiths Energy International Inc. – On January 22, 2013, Griffiths Energy International Inc.pleaded guilty to a charge under the CFPOA related to securing an oil and gas contract in Chad. Griffiths acknowledged having committed to paying $2 million in cash and millions in shares in exchange for exclusive access to resources in two regions. After providing the Chad government with a $40 million signing bonus, Griffiths was awarded the resources rights. Griffiths will pay a total penalty of $10.35 million.
• Niko Resources Ltd. – On June 24, 2011, Niko Resources Ltd. pleaded guilty to one count of bribery. Niko admitted that, through its subsidiary Niko Bangladesh, it provided the use of a vehicle (valued at $190,984) in May 2005 to AKM Mosharraf Hossain, then the Bangladeshi State Minister for Energy and Mineral Resources, in order to influence the minister in his dealings with Niko Bangladesh. In June 2005, Niko Resources Ltd. paid travel and accommodation expenses for the same minister to travel from Bangladesh to Calgary to attend the GO EXPO oil and gas exposition, and paid approximately $5,000 for the minister to travel to New York and Chicago to visit his family. Niko Resources Ltd. was fined $9.5 million and placed under a probation order, which puts the company under the court’s supervision for three years to ensure that audits are completed to examine the company’s compliance with the CFPOA. The Canadian Trade Commissioner Service has placed a hold on providing services to Niko during the period of court supervision.
• Hydro-Kleen Group Inc. – On January 10, 2005, Hydro-Kleen Group Inc., pleaded guilty to one count of bribery of a U.S. immigration official who worked at the Calgary International Airport.  Hydro-Kleen was ordered to pay a fine of $25,000.  The U.S. immigration officer pleaded guilty in July 2002 to accepting secret commissions. He received a six-month sentence and was subsequently deported to the United States. 

In 2008, the Government of Canada passed legislation that would permit it to ratify ICSID.  Trade Lawyers Blog reported on June 13, 2008 that "On March 14, 2008 that Bill C-9 "An Act to Implement the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention)" reached its final point in Canada's legislative process and received royal assent."  Trade Lawyers Blog reported on February 21, 2010 that Canada has STILL not ratified ICSID.

The reason for the delay in ratifying ICSID is that all of the Canadian provinces must also ratify ICSID due to the fact than many matters relating to the conduct of arbitrations in Canada are covered by provincial legislation.  While little information is publicly available, it is understood that to date only Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Saskatchewan and British Columbia have agreed to ratify ICSID with the Government of Canada.  All the provinces will have to pass implementing legislation.

The Legal Post (Julius Melnitzer) reported on October 2, 2012 in an article entitled "New Brunswick Premier Alward confirms federal pressure to ratify ICSID" that the Government of Canada is putting pressure of the provinces who have not yet agreed to ratify ICSID (Prince Edward island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta).

Canadians join in the U.S. tradition of bargain shopping on Black Friday and over Thanksgiving week-end. Problems arise when Canadians do not have all of their receipts in order from their shopping trip. If a traveler declares $500 worth of goods for a 24 hour trip, he/she is telling the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) that he/she has exceeded the personal exemption limit and will have to pay duties and taxes. However, if one invoice is left in the bag for $100 (and is not included in a calculation) or the traveler does not use the calculator feature on an iPhone, the CBSA will say the traveler under-declared. The CBSA often does not allow any grace for human error. The CBSA will allow the traveler to complete a Casual Accounting of Goods for for the value declared and will seize the goods that were not declared and impose a penalty of 30% or 40% or 50% or 60%.

Also, the primary CBSA officer wants to hear about all the purchases. The Recourse Directorate has written in response to appeals that the traveler has the obligation to make a complete declaration. So, please make a list and check it twice. The CBSA officer may say that you have reported enough and you should clearly indicate that there is more on your list. If you declare a sweater and forget to add the receipt in the total, you may have a grounds to appeal any enforcement action.

If the traveler is a NEXUS pass holder, the CBSA may confiscate the traveler's NEXUS privileges AND impose a higher level of penalty on the under-declared goods. The ramifications can be quite costly and serious for a frequent traveler.

When the CBSA confiscates a NEXUS pass, the traveler must appeal the enforcement action and the confiscation of the NEXUS pass. The bigger the mistake, the harder it is to explain human error.

I recommend that travelers keep all their receipts together so that a list can be prepared on the plane or before you leave a store parking lot.

Streamlining Canada’s Trade Remedy System

Economic Action Plan 2012 proposes to consolidate Canada’s trade remedy investigation functions into one organization, under the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

Canada’s continued support for trade liberalization is complemented by a strong and effective trade remedy system, which acts as an important safety valve for Canadian manufacturers harmed by unfairly traded imports. Canada’s trade remedy system is currently jointly administered by the Canada Border Services Agency and the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT).

In Budget 2011, the Government committed to proposing initiatives to ensure Canada operates an efficient trade remedy system. To deliver on this commitment, the Government will introduce legislation to consolidate Canada’s trade remedy investigation functions into one organization, under the CITT. This restructuring will create efficiencies that will help the Government maintain and sustain an effective trade remedy system. This initiative will also cut red tape, making it less cumbersome for Canadian businesses to take action against unfair trade, and will result in cost savings.

This short announcement in a 498 page document is sending shockwaves in the trade remedies bar.  To make this happen, a major revision of the Special Import Measure Act (“SIMA”) and Special Import Measures Regulations will be required.

Currently, an anti-dumping and/or countervailing duty complaint is filed with the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”).  Currently, the CBSA makes a determination as to whether the complaint is properly documented. The CBSA establishes the scope of the product description.    Currently, the CBSA conducts the dumping and subsidy investigations and makes preliminary and final determinations.  The CBSA calculates normal values, export prices and dumping margins.  The CBSA determines amounts of subsidy.  The CBSA conducts reinvestigations of normal value and export prices.  The CBSA has a role in expiry reviews and determines whether antidumping and/or subsidization with resume or continue if the duties are removed. 

The extent to which these mandates will be transferred to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (“CITT”) as a result of the March 29, 2012 announcement is to be determined.  The CITT is created by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act.  The CITT has the powers of a superior court of record.  The CITT currently has a mandate to conduct injury investigations, conduct the injury inquiry in the expiry review process, hears SIMA appeals, hears customs appeals, hears procurement complaints, conducts global and China specific safeguard inquiries, conducts textile references, etc.  The CITT is already very busy and the proposed change will significantly add to their workload.

If the CBSA’s role is to be eliminated, it would be like ending the Department of Commerce’s role in U.S. trade remedies cases and moving the responsibilities to the International Trade Commission.

The proposed Economic Action Plan change intends to improve access to Canada’s trade remedies by small and medium sized manufacturers.  The intention is to streamline the process, which should make pursuit of legal rights less expensive. 

Please stay tuned because changes are coming ...

Since March 17, 2009, the Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”) has been tasked with enforcing the CITT’s order and has been very busy.  Many importers who import a variety of goods from parts of outdoor railings to door frames to window frames to aluminum parts have been under the watchful eye of the CBSA.  The CBSA have followed up on imports of all things aluminum and have issued many detailed adjustment statements (also known as “assessments”) imposing unpaid SIMA duties, GST and interest.  The antidumping duties are currently 101% and the countervailing duties are calculated based on 15.84 RMB/kg. This adds up to a lot of money.

Many importers have filed requests for redetermination with the CBSA (also known as an appeal).  The CBSA will be working through this backlog of appeals and will be issuing decisions.  Some importers will be lucky and the SIMA duties and interest will be reversed.  Many may not be so lucky and the CBSA will confirm the initia determination that subject goods were imported.  If this should happen, the importer would have a right of appeal to the CITT.

Pursuant to subsection 61(1) of the Special Import Measures Act (“SIMA”), a person who deems himself aggrieved by a re-determination of the President of the CBSA made pursuant to section 59 of SIMA in respect of any goods may appeal the redetermination to the CITT by filing a notice of appeal within 90 days of the date of the re-determination.  A copy of the appeal must be sent to the CITT and the President of the CBSA – do not forget to send to both.

The CITT has a publication on its web-site regarding the process for filing an appeal and the steps in an appeal.  As previously mentioned, the importer files an appeal within 90 days of the CBSA’s re-determination.  The importer must file with the Tribunal an Appellant’s Brief within 60 days of filing the appeal (the CITT usually writes to the importer and gives them the filing deadline).  The appellant’s brief must state that the appeal is being filed pursuant to the Special Import Measures Act.  In addition, the importer must give a description of the goods at issue (so that the CITT knows what they are dealing with), indicate the points at issue between the appellant and the CBSA (e.g., the goods are not subject goods) and the reasons why the appellant thinks the CBSA is incorrect.  This is where the appellant may need the assistance of a lawyer because it is important to frame the issues and reasons clearly and properly.

The CBSA files their responding brief 60 days after the appellant files their brief.  Usually, the appellant is permitted to file a reply brief and respond to what the CBSA has written in their responding brief.

After the briefs are filed, a hearing is scheduled.  There may be pre-hearing conference calls.  There may be experts’ reports.  There may be the filing of physical exhibits and laboratory analysis relating to the goods.

Three members of the CITT sit as the “judges” at the hearing.  Witness testimony is presented at the hearing and after the oral evidence is presented, the parties (or their counsel) will argue points of law. This is where lawyers who are knowledgeable in antidumping and countervailing duty law can be helpful.  Some trade lawyers were potentially involved in (1) the original CITT proceedings or (2) a reinvestigations by the CBSA or (3) an appeal or (4) an interim review.  I have been involved in all of the above.

If you require assistance, please call me at 416-389-8999.

I have received more calls recently from individuals living in border cities who have had a NEXUS pass confiscated for a failure to declare goods within their $50 daily exemption limit.  The Windsor-Detroit tunnel/Ambassador Bridge and the Rainbow Bridge border crossings are common ports of entry for the application of a zero-tolerance policy.  Any little mistake is treated as an infraction.  This is why I declare a half eaten chocolate bar.

The CBSA have indicated they have a zero tolerance policy and may confiscate a NEXUS pass for even the most minor failure to declare goods.  I have seen that the CBSA has confiscated a NEXUS pass for as little as a failure to declare the purchase of $13.00 worth of goods.  This person works in the United States and after a long day with a mind full of other things had a momentary memory lapse that he/she picked up an inexpensive item that day.

I have seen the CBSA confiscate a NEXUS pass for a failure to declare a tank of gas ($75.00) purchased near the border.  This person works in the United States and was almost out of gas on his/her way home and filled up on the U.S. side to avoid running out of gas in a border line up.

There does not seem to be a reasonable approach at the border in some cases.  Travelers are not given the benefit of the doubt by the border officer.   The border officer does not look to see whether a person has a history of reporting and paying duties and taxes (there is an assumption that they have breached customs laws regularly and were finally caught).  The goods are seized, higher levels of penalties are imposed because the NEXUS pass holder is a “trusted traveler” who has breached the CBSA’s trust, and the NEXUS pass is confiscated.

The traveler is informed that he/she may file an appeal of the penalties and the confiscation of the NEXUS pass.  However, there is little guidance available on how to file an appeal, what is the process, and how long will it take.

The process is:

1)      The traveler must appeal the penalty within 90 days of the seizure and penalty.  This letter goes to the CBSA Resource Directorate in Ottawa; and

2)      The traveler must appeal the confiscation of the NEXUS pass by writing to the NEXUS program in Fort Erie within 30 days of a letter from the NEXUS program concerning the confiscation of the NEXUS pass (but they cannot provide an answer until the Recourse Directorate finishes its review).

The CBSA Recourse Directorate will send a letter acknowledging receipt of the appeal (actually called a request for redetermination).  The Recourse Directorate will obtain the border officers’ reports (usually the primary officer and the secondary officer who seized the goods write reports).  The Recourse Directorate will provide a preliminary view and the border officers’ reports to the traveler/appellant and allow them an opportunity to file additional information (usually within 30 days).  If the traveler/appellant sends additional information, the Recourse Directorate may make a decision based on that information or may provide it to the primary and secondary officers for additional comments.  If the primary or secondary officer writes a supplemental report, the Recourse Directorate may provide it to the traveler/appellant for additional comments. So, it may take four letters to fully present your side of the story.  Based on my experience, this process may take as little as a few weeks or longer than a year – there is no way to speed up the process (besides being quickly to respond to requests for information and providing complete information about customs compliance history).

If the Recourse Directorate allows the appeal, it is common that the NEXUS program will return the NEXUS pass because the customs infraction is overturned.  However, there have been cases where the NEXUS program does not overturn the confiscation.  If the Recourse Directorate reduces the penalties but continues to take the position that a customs law has been broken, the NEXUS program can go either way.  If the Recourse Directorate does not allow the appeal and does not reduce the penalty, there is a very low probability that the NEXUS privileges will be reinstated.

I have seen individuals in NEXUS purgatory for over 6 years.  Even after 6 years, the CBSA has rejected applications for the reissuance of a NEXUS pass.  While the time between secondary inspections may lengthen, the computers still have the record of the customs infraction.

My recommendation is to be organized and report purchases. Pay duties and taxes on overages and keep those records to show customs compliance if and when you have a memory lapse.  When you buy something, put a post-it note on your NEXUS pass to indicate you have something to declare.  Keep declaration forms in your car and fill them out when you purchase anything outside Canada.   If you cannot remember the value of the goods, DO NOT guess – say you forget and have to look at the receipt. 

If you get into trouble for failure to declare and your NEXUS privileges have been taken away, seek legal advice.  I have seen too many draft letters (and actual letters sent to the CBSA) that are not written well.  Many letters complain about the CBSA officers’ actions and do not explain the momentary memory lapse. Some letters restate the accusation of the officer rather than focussing the factual evidence on a history of compliance.

For assistance, please call Cyndee Todgham Cherniak at 416-389-8999.

The process usually starts with a notification by the freight forwarded/shipper to the export that the container has been stopped and held for Vehicle and Cargo Inspection System (VACIS) inspection by the CBSA.  This inspection has an associated fee.  The CBSA undertakes a scan and if the good looks like it may be a controlled good the shipment is stopped.

The CBSA detains a shipment and then asks the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), Export Controls Division if they have issued an export permit for the goods.  If there isn’t an export permit, the Export Controls Division contacts the exporter so that they may determine if an export permit is necessary (that is, whether the goods are contained on Canada’s Export Controls List).  Usually, the exporter receives an email with the following request from an officer in the Export Controls Division:

The Export Controls Division also likes to receive a copy of the end-use certificate.

The exporters often fumble in providing this information and get themselves into difficulties because they do not understand what is the role of the Export Controls Division and what do they need to do their job efficiently.  Often exporters provide minimal information about the goods and the Export Controls Division has to ask a series of follow-up questions.  Often exporter treats this as a minor formality rather than the serious exercise that it is.  Exporters know their goods so well that they forget that a non-expert would not be able to figure it out based on a single line or a single piece of paper.  The Export Controls Division cannot determine if the good requires an export permit without knowing exactly what is the good, for what is it used, how is it used, what are the inputs in the good, and what the very specific technical specifications are.  For example, my first case involved a bender and the question on whether an export permit was needed or not turned on the precision of the bending that could be performed with the bender.

The Export Controls Division also wants to know if the good is of U.S. origin because there are export permit rules relating to U.S. made goods. Often goods being exported from Canada need a U.S. export permit. Many exporters who are restricted by U.S. export controls laws bring the goods to Canada and attempt to ship the goods from Canada. DFAIT will trace certificates of origin to see whether the goods really originated in the U.S.

Any information provided to the Export Controls Division will be verified.  If information is incorrect in any of the documentation or is determined to by false, the goods may be seized.  If goods are seized, the process is more complex and lengthy to appeal such a decision.

Even if the goods are determined by the Export Controls Division to not be on Canada’s Export Control List, the goods may remain detained until after a determination by the Economic Sanctions of DFAIT.  The Economic Sanctions group looks at whether the goods are being sent to a “designated person” in Iran, Syria or another country that is subject to Canada’s economic sanctions and trade restrictions laws. This is where the end use certificate is so important and must be properly completed.  If the end use certificate provides detailed information about the ultimate recipient (including a telephone number and name and contact person) the CBSA can call, the process moves more quickly.  When goods are being sent to a warehouse or an intermediary, the verification process is slower.  The CBSA and DFAIT have the ability to get information and assess the risk.

These investigations take time and letters of credit can expire while the goods are being detained by the CBSA. Also, freight forwarders and shippers often charge storage and demurrage charges for the detained goods that are taking up space in their warehouse.

If you require more information, please call Cyndee Todgham Cherniak, a Canadian lawyer with export controls and economic sanctions expertise at 416-389-8999.