WineLaw.ca
Bringing Wine Back to Canada After a Trip
- Thursday, 10 April 2008 08:43
So you are taking a vacation abroad? Maybe to a nice wine producing area like France, Italy or California. And you would like to bring some wine back with you?
Duty Free Allowance
How much can you bring back? Well, the duty-free allowance for bringing wine back to Canada is only 1.5 litres per person which is a rather miserly 2 bottles. You are allowed to bring back 8.5 litres of beer but only 2 bottles of wine. See CBSA site for the limits. If you are within the duty-free allowance, you won't have to pay anything extra. If you are lucky and have a nice customs person (of which there are quite a few), you might be allowed to bring back a bit more.
Charges & Fees Above Duty Free Allowance (For Wine Accompanying Traveller - Not for Wine that is Shipped Separately)
If you are above the duty-free limit but within the import limit for your province (45 litres for BC), you will have to pay applicable taxes, markups and duties. In BC, those charges are more than 100% of the value of the wine - that will quickly negate any savings.
As an example, for BC only, here are the extra charges that you may have to pay on wine above your duty-free allowance. For each 750 ml of bottle, the fees are as follows:
| Customs Duty: |
$0.00 on U.S. wine, $0.03 on most other wine |
| Excise Duty: |
$0.47 |
| HST: | 12% of (purchase price + customs duty + excise duty) |
| BC Liquor Board Fee: | 85% of (purchase price + customs duty + excise duty) with a minimum fee of $1.83 and a maximum of $12.75 |
| PST: | now replaced by HST |
To give you an example of how egregious these fees are, here is an example for a bottle of wine that you purchased for $8.00 in a U.S. store. Note that nearly all of the fees are PROVINCIAL. The federal government hardly charges anything in comparison.
| Customs Duty: |
$0.00 |
| Excise Duty: |
$0.47 |
| HST: | $1.02 |
| BC Liquor Board Fee: | $7.20 |
| TOTAL EXTRA FEES AT BORDER: |
$8.69 |
So on an $8.00 bottle of wine, you will pay an additional $8.69 at the border - so your wine ends up costing you $16.69. Only 89 cents of that goes to the federal government. The rest are provincial fees, mostly Liquor Board markups and fees.
However, you should note that because the LDB markup/fee caps out a maximum of $12.75 per bottle, the personal import of expensive wine may be cost-effective.
IMPORTANT: the above charges are only valid in the "traveller stream" (i.e. for individuals returning from a trip with liquor accompanying them). They are not valid if you try to import the wine yourself without going on a trip or if you arrange to have it shipped to you while you are away. In these latter situations, the import process is extremely complicated and the charges are even higher. At the present time, I do not recommend that any BC resident have wine shipped to BC from abroad.
[UPDATE 2010-07-17: rates above have been updated for the introduction of the HST ... see updated news article on post-HST charges for U.S. trips for additional examples and comparisons]
Comparisons With Other Jurisdictions
By contrast, the United States allows 1 litre of wine for its residents to bring back duty-free (less than Canada!) but the duty and tax rates on anything over the limit are extremely low: 3% duty (not applicable for Canadian wine due to NAFTA) plus maybe some other IRS or state taxes if applicable. See the U.S. CBP site for info . In addition, I am told that even these amounts are not often charged on reasonable amounts that are brought back. See this site for specific information on bringing B.C. wine back into Washington state.
For even greater contrast, look at the EU: for example, if you go over to France from England, you can apparently bring back up to 90 litres of wine without problem! See HM Customs page for wine import information .
Differences Between Provinces
The fees levied at the border within Canada vary depending upon what province you return into. As a result, your return point of entry may dramatically affect the fees: see this CBSA (Canada Customs) memorandum which sets out all the details of border tax collection (including wine markups). For example, if you are a resident of BC but return to Canada via Alberta, you will be charged the Alberta markups when you re-enter Canada (this is because Canada Customs does not have the jurisdiction to levy fees from one province in a different one). The fees in BC are very high for low to moderately priced wine. By contrast, in Alberta there is a flat per bottle fee charged, around $3 per bottle.
For Ontario: import info is here on the LCBO site. For Quebec: import info is here on the SAQ site.
For further information on this topic and comparative rates between provinces, you may want to read this interesting article, Bringing it Back, by Girvan Patterson - however, it is wise to check current CBSA information for the current rates (I have not verified any of the info in this article other than the BC fees). In addition, you should be aware that legally, you are not permitted to "land" in a favourable rate province such as Alberta and then bring the wine with you to a different one such as B.C. This is because it is technically illegal for anyone to transport wine across provincial borders unless the wine is going to the liquor board in the receiving province (see the related shipping laws article for details). In addition, you are suppposed to voluntarily declare the wine to the B.C. LDB when you get back and pay any applicable taxes. However, it is actually impossible to comply with this statutory requirement because the "prescribed form" required by s.65 of the Liquor Control and Licensing Act has, in fact, never been prescribed. In any event and practically, this requirement is very difficult to enforce.
Legal Authority to Collect Border Charges
There is no doubt that CBSA (Canada Customs) has the authority to collect taxes and duties at the border when you return to Canada. However, the vast majority of the amounts charged on wine (and other alcohol) are not taxes or duties ... they are liquor board markups. Liquor board markup is legally not valid as a tax (although all the revenue still goes to the relevant provincial government). It is imposed by the various liquor boards on the legal basis that they "own" the liquor in question and, as such, can levy whatever profits and fees they like on it. However, a small problem arises at the border because you, as the traveller, have already purchased the liquor (i.e. you own it) when you are bringing it back. In order to fix this, the liquor boards have created an artificial legal structure whereby they vest the customs officer with the power to act as an agent of the liquor board. The customs officer/liquor board agent then technically expropriates (seizes) your liquor from you (without compensating you) and will then release it back to you only when you pay all of the markups and fees. Don't believe me? Check out section 19 of the Liquor Distribution Act. There is also some federal legislation (which clearly relates only to tax), an "order-in-council" (which doesn't add much) and an agreement between the CBSA and the LDB.
Personally, I have some doubts as to the legal validity of this structure since the liquor board appears to be using its statutory monopoly power as a regulator to impose markups at levels which are excessive in order to discourage competition with its retail arm. For example, the markups discussed above are applied to the full retail price that you paid for the wine. Since markups are applied to the wholesale cost within BC and since the liquor board has no costs associated with your imported purchase, it seems punitive to impose this level of markup. In addition, since BC wine purchased directly from a winery has zero markup, it seems unfair (NAFTA? GATT?) to charge these levels of markup at the border when you purchase wine in exactly the same way from a winery in WA, OR or CA.
But until someone challenges it, that's the legal authority.
CA Winery Settles Host Liability Case for $3 Million
- Friday, 11 December 2009 09:58
I spoke about the issues surrounding "host liability" for wineries at the recent wine law conference that was held in November here in Vancouver. Those of you that were there will have heard my warnings regarding a winery's potential legal liability if an individual who has been served alcohol at the winery is in an accident later that injures either himself or another person.
While I am unaware of any B.C. wineries being in this situation recently, a news story from California illustrates the expensive consequences of a failure to live up to the applicable legal standards. In this case, the Sonoma County winery had hosted a wedding event and served numerous beers to a guest who was, in fact, under age. That guest ended up in a car accident later in the night in which his passenger was seriously injured. The passenger sued the winery, 7-Eleven (who later had sold some additional alcohol to the pair), and the driver. The eventual settlement ended up with the winery shouldering the bulk of the costs.
Okanagan Water Law for Wineries
- Wednesday, 19 November 2008 13:56
It's already a major issue for wineries in California. I know that faculty at UC Davis are now considering water needs and ability to survive drought as an important factor when selecting rootstocks for new vineyard plantings. Here in water-abundant Canada, this has historically not been a major concern. But an article in Wine Business Monthly Online shines a light on similar Canadian concerns in its review of the Okanagan Sustainable Water Strategy and the implications for wineries in the region. The article points out that winery use of water is a tiny percentage of overall usage and that conversion to drip irrigation is making industry use of the resource even more efficient.
The legal implications of water usage are still generally a backburner issue. However, occasionally, as the article points out, the Province can use its powers under environmental laws to cut off water supplies to users as happened for some Okanagan wineries in 2003 during a drought. In addition, water concerns can block development, whether residential or otherwise (including wineries), if the development threatens to change water usage or conservation patterns.
Licensing a Winery in BC
- Tuesday, 23 August 2011 10:00
This is a short guide to the unconventional approach to licensing wineries that BC has adopted. In most jurisdictions, it is possible to read through the winery licensing requirements within the applicable laws ... in other words, it is fairly easy to discover what the requirements are for obtaining a license. However, in BC, this is not the case. There are some requirements listed in the Liquor Control and Licensing Act. However, the most onerous requirements are imposed by the Liquor Distribution Branch, which (in my view at least) does not even have the statutory jurisdiction to regulate the manufacture of wine. Read More to see how the system works.
BC LCLB Warns on Internet Marketing
- Monday, 05 December 2011 11:07
Wineries and other licensees should be aware that the BC LCLB issued a statement on internet marketing in the October 2011 issue of their “Liquor Line” newsletter which is available on the LCLB website here. The statement warns licensees that the sale or advertising of any liquor product without a license is not legal in BC. It then continues by saying “[t]herefore companies like Groupon or ethicalDeal.com cannot legally include liquor as part of a promotion. Given this, it is not permitted for licensees to enter into and offer these sorts of promotions. (emphasis added)” This wording could be interpreted as prohibiting many third-party marketing companies from including liquor as part of their marketing services or promotions when they are working with a licensee such as a winery or retailer.
The question then arises: is it legal for third party marketing companies to work with licensees at all and, if so, what can they do? It is my view that it is legal for third party marketing companies to work with licensees so long as all parties pay careful attention to structuring their relationships correctly. The issues are basically the same as those faced by the California ABC which recently issued a detailed advisory on these issues (Third Party Providers - PDF) which was created after extensive industry consultation and legal advice. It’s my opinion that the analysis in the California advisory is well done and should also be applicable to British Columbia.
I have confirmed with the BC LCLB that their statement was based on an analysis of the ‘default’ method of Groupon promotion under which the marketing company processes and is an integral part of the sale. However, there are, in fact, many other methods of structuring internet promotions (some of which may be legal and some of which may not) and the LCLB has also confirmed that “each case must be considered on its own merits”. However, the LCLB has not confirmed that they will follow the same principles as have been established in California and there may well now be confusion within the BC industry as to what is permissible and what is not (as there was in California prior to the ABC issuing its ruling). In the interim, licensees should be cautious about internet marking and should obtain legal advice if they are entering into these types of marketing arrangements.


