Ting Ting Tam II

Wrote previously about the Tam case, including a link to Chinese media. Here is the text:

华裔女子带肉入关被罚800 控歧视败诉 [复制链接]

纸风铃

发表于 2014-11-25 10:23:14 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

一名华妇从中国带回猪肉制品,因未申报遭海关查获,罚款800元。她不服向“农业申诉庭”(CART)提出申诉,该庭认为海关官员是根据其族裔背景才检查行李,有歧视之嫌,因此无需缴罚款。但司法部上诉,联邦法官认为CART的裁定有误,退回重审。

许多华裔移民从原居地返回加拿大时都会携带当地特产,包括海关明文禁止的肉类或农产品。华裔女子谭婷婷(音译,Ting Ting Tam)2012年11月7日从中国返回加拿大时,在渥太华机场被查获携带猪肉制品。

当时海关第一线官员询问她是否有携带任何食物、植物、蔬菜或糖果等可食用物品,但她回答“没有”。由于官员发现她神色有异,于是要求她接受另一名海关官员的进一步检查。

移民从原居地返回加拿大,携带未申报的肉类或农产品,遭查获将被罚款。(图:CBSA提供)

结果在第二阶段检查(secondary examination)时,官员从她的行李中发现在中国购买的多种猪肉制品。于是加拿大边境服务署(CBSA)对其开出告发单(Notice of Violation),并罚款800元。

但谭婷婷不服,向加拿大农业申诉庭提出申诉,指第一线海关官员是因为她的华裔背景,才要求其接受第二阶段检查,有歧视之嫌。

农业申诉庭在审理这起案件时接受她的论点,因为该名官员在书面声明中指出,根据他过去的工作经验,经常有华裔人士从中国返回时携带农产品入境。于是在2013年12月24日裁定CBSA发出的告发单无效,谭婷婷无须缴纳罚款。

由于兹事体大,此例一开,无异于让农产防疫之门洞开,联邦司法部立即向联邦法庭提出司法覆核。

联邦法官认为,谭婷婷携带未申报的猪肉制品入关是事实,且农业申诉庭认定第一线官员要求她进行第二阶段检查的理由完全是基于族裔背景,这种立论也不成立,因为该名官员在声明中已指出,谭婷婷当时神色紧张,举止有异,才会要求她进一步检查。

且官员在执行勤务时,根本不可能完全排除受过往经验的影响,因此法官认定“农业申诉庭”的裁决有误,撤销原裁定,退回农业申诉庭重审。 (来自世界日报)

回复 (Comments Below)

张博看微博

发表于 2014-11-25 11:14:53 |只看该作者

@viki_zhou

大哥华Will

发表于 2014-11-25 11:41:59 |只看该作者

@Lucia卡布

在远方写作

发表于 2014-11-25 11:41:59 |只看该作者

其实,我一直很难理解,为什么要带肉制品…[哼] 还有人询问我,需不需要从国内带枕头、被子到国外…其实,真的没什么必要,除非它们对你有纪念意义。

随小乖寻鸟

发表于 2014-11-25 12:19:12 |只看该作者

明知故犯,该罚。

One of my students wrote to explain what was being said:

I would like to respond to your request on the nuances of the Chinese media coverage regarding the Ting Ting Tam case. I read through the Chinese forum posting that you have linked in your blog. The writing style is quite neutral. The posting summarizes the situation and acknowledges the fact that Chinese nationals tend to bring back to Canada local specialties, including the forbidden meat and food products. It then states that if Ting Ting Tam is not liable for the fine, it is obvious that a hole now exists in the inspection defense. Thus the border agency is seeking a second look at the situation.

As this was posted on a forum, there were some comments that followed. One individual said that he finds it hard to understand why people are tempted to try to bring food products across borders as they have no sentimental value. Another said: she knew it was wrong and she did it anyway, she deserved to be punished. The article itself is written quite neutrally, probably because it came from World Journal, a Chinese overseas publication.

The World Journal link is here.

My student commented further, as follows:

The World Journal article is identical to the one posted in the forum. The only difference is that World Journal uses traditional script while the forum converted it to simplified script.

Interestingly, after I’ve done a search on the article, I’ve discovered it was reblogged many times in different forums. In particular it was on a Chinese Canadian expat forum named 51. After a quick look at the comments there, the responses were quite varied with some expressing similar sentiment to the responses that I’ve translated. However, there were some sentiments that were much more polarized toward the other extreme. There are individuals that agree that profiling for inspection, such as for people of Asian decent are often questioned about farm products, meat products and precious metals, whereas for Latinos, they are inspected for illegal drugs. Some people also say that there should be nothing wrong with bringing food across the borders and that the government is trying to make too much of an issue.

There is in particular one comment that is quite interesting to me. This person says, Ting Ting’s case is too tenuous. If they (border inspections) only check Chinese people, but didn’t find any problems, then that is racism. If clearly they see that there is a problem, but because you are Chinese and do not inspect you, then that is a symptom of lax enforcement.

Hopefully this is helpful!

Advertisements

About brucelarochelle

Practising Lawyer and Part-Time University Instructor (Accounting, Commercial Law, Organizational Behaviour); Part-Time Federal Tribunal Member. Non-practising Chartered Professional Accountant (Chartered Accountant and Certified Management Accountant).
This entry was posted in Tribunal. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s