1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

Legal Guide

The valuation of goods imported into Canada is governed by the Customs Act and regulations passed thereunder. Value for duty determinations establishes the base upon which customs duties are levied. In the vast majority of cases, customs duties on goods imported into Canada will be calculated on the basis of their “transaction value”. The “transaction value” is the price paid or payable for the goods that are exported to a purchaser in Canada, subject to a number of adjustments, which take into account factors such as royalties, the costs of shipping, transportation and commissions. Where a price cannot be determined, the Customs Act provides for other methods of valuation to be used, including the transaction value of identical or similar goods, or deductive or computed (“cost-plus”) value.

Additional posts from the blog



Canada’s Anti-Spam Law – New Guidance on Offering Apps, Software

by Margot Patterson

CASL also prohibits installing a “computer program” – including an app, widget, software, or other executable data – on a computer system (e.g. computer, device) unless the program is installed with consent and complies with disclosure requirements. The provisions in CASL related to the installation of computer programs will come into force on January 15, 2015.



Environment Canada issues Hydrofluorocarbon reporting requirement

by Nalin Sahni

On April 7, 2014, the Minister of the Environment issued a Notice with respect to hydrofluorocarbons (the “Notice”), pursuant to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999. The Notice imposes reporting requirements on those who imported, exported, or manufactured certain hydrofluorocarbons (“HFCs”) from 2008 and 2012. A non-exhaustive list of HFCs subject to these reporting requirements can be found in Schedule 1 of the Notice.



“Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”

by Andy Pushalik

In an interesting decision, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ruled that an employer is not liable for discriminatory and harassing texts sent by a rogue employee to another of its workers.

Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

© 2018 Dentons