Airport - Customs - Paying for Overages

I don’t mind paying for predictable overage costs. I mostly pay attention to bringing receipts to demonstrate that my goods are within limits.

(I am spooked though about the iPad situation described above. I typically bring a 12.9” Pro for watching movies while in Mexico and a 9.7” iPad to use on the flight. Now I’m reluctant bring both.)

I consider that the difficulties we are experiencing in Zihuatanejo are two-fold and in some ways related.

One is inconsistency. One person with two “checked” suitcases gets a green light and sails through. Another person with one checked and one carry on gets the green light and is directed to have everything inspected anyway. In past years, i found that if i packed my things in checked “luggage” and got a green light, I was through. If I packed my things in a cardboard box instead, I had to open everything, even with a green light.

The second is the appearance of arbitrariness. This is related to the above, but also occurs at the stage of assessing duty. My friend’s assessment started at over M$2000 and ended up at M$1500. In the report of the OP, the visitor was not given the option of paying duty… only arbitrary seizure of the important item.

When I return to BC, I typically bring one pricey bottle of tequila or mescal that would be even more expensive or unavailable in BC. That is my “keeper” bottle.

I bring one bottle of inexpensive rum. It is my “risk” bottle. A C$15 750 ml bottle would attract C$35.19 in duty & taxes.

http://www.canadiandutycalculator.ca/index.php

I have declared my overage on all of my scores of trips. Only once was there a requirement to pay. But it was “non-negotiable”. The assessment was the assessment that might be waived, but not negotiated.

(As that made it more expensive than buying in BC, I just surrendered the rum.)

I’m not arguing that either method is the “right” method. One is more transparent, more predictable, and has less sense of arbitrariness. The other has more “flexibility” at the greater risk of perceived unfairness.