Date: 20080218
Docket: T-382-06
Citation: 2008 FC 203
Toronto, Ontario, February 18, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Keefe
BETWEEN:
SPIKE
MARKS INC.
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
O’KEEFE J.
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of seven decisions issued by the President
of the Canada Border Services Agency (the CBSA) dated February 3, 2006 pursuant
to subsection 60(4) of the Customs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-1 (collectively,
the “re-determination”). Seven separate applications were made to the Federal Court,
but they were consolidated under this file number in an order issued May 10,
2006 by Prothonotary Tabib.
[2]
The
applicant requests:
(a)
a
declaration that the re-determination (and any prior decision made under the Customs
Act) is invalid and unlawful insofar as it purports to assess excise duties
and additional duties on imports of cigars by the applicant;
(b) an order in
the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing or setting aside the re-determination
(and any prior decision made under the Customs Act) insofar as it
purports to assess excise duties and additional duties on imports of cigars by
the applicant; and
(c)
costs.
[3]
The
respondent requests:
(a)
that
this application for judicial review be dismissed; and
(b) costs.
Background
[4]
The
applicant imports goods from the United States of America, including
the goods at issue in this application, specifically flavoured cigars which are
imported in individual plastic containers. At the time of importation of the
goods into Canada, the
applicant classified the cigars under tariff item 2402.10.00 and the plastic
containers separately under tariff item 3923.10.90.
[5]
On
February 22, 2005, the CBSA gave written notice to the applicant that it would
be conducting a compliance verification review of its importations for the
period of January 1 to December 31, 2004. The applicant received the
verification report dated May 16, 2005, which determined that the applicant had
improperly classified the cigars and the plastic containers under the Customs
Tariff, S.C 1997, c.-36, as separate tariff items instead of as one single
tariff item under number 2402.10.00.90. The verification report further
instructed the applicant to file amended entries by August 19, 2005, for all
similar transaction with the same error for the period of September 1, 2001 to
May 16, 2005. The applicant did so.
[6]
On
May 24 and June 2, 2005, the CBSA issued seven detailed adjustment statements
(the DASs). These seven DASs notified the applicant that the cigars and plastic
containers had indeed been reclassified. The DASs also indicated the amount of
the excise and additional duties imposed under sections 42 and 43 of the Excise
Act, 2001, S.C. 2002, c.-22 as a result of the reclassification. On
June 27, 2005, the applicant paid the outstanding amount of the seven DASs.
[7]
On
August 18, 2005, pursuant to subsection 60(1) of the Customs Act, the
applicant appealed the DASs to the President of the CBSA. On November 21, 2005,
the CBSA regional recourse officer (the recourse officer) issued a preliminary
decision upholding the seven DASs. Following this preliminary decision, the
applicant made further submissions to the CBSA. The parties met on December 20,
2005 wherein the applicant’s representatives advised the CBSA that they agreed
with the reclassification, but disagreed with the calculation of the excise and
additional duties.
[8]
On
February 3, 2006, the President of the CBSA issued seven re-determinations
upholding the reclassification of the cigars and plastic containers as a single
unit and the assessment of duties as per the recourse officer’s November 21,
2005 preliminary decision. In upholding the assessment of the excised and
additional duties, the President of the CBSA relied on the reasons of the recourse
officer’s preliminary decision dated November 21, 2005, specifically the CBSA’s
interpretation of the meaning of the term “duty-paid value” in sections 2 of
the Excise Act, 2001. It is ultimately the interpretation of this term
that caused the imposition of further duties on the applicant and is the
subject of this application for judicial review.
[9]
On
March 3, 2006, the applicant filed seven applications for judicial review of
the seven re-determinations. These seven applications were consolidated into
the within application (T-382-06).
[10]
On
May 2, 2006, pursuant to section 67 of the Customs Act, the applicant
filed an appeal with the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the CITT). The
applicant then moved immediately for a dismissal of its own appeal on the
grounds that the CITT lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal as it dealt with
the CBSA’s authority to assess excise and additional duties under the Excise
Act, 2001.
[11]
In
light of this appeal, this application for judicial review was stayed by order
dated August 31, 2006, pending the outcome of the applicant’s appeal to the
CITT.
[12]
On
October 31, 2006, the CITT issued its decision in Spike Marks Inc. v. Canada
Border Services Agency, [2006] C.I.T.T. No. 113 (the CITT decision)
granting the applicant’s motion to dismiss the appeal on the basis of a lack of
jurisdiction to consider “the methodology for assessing and calculating
volume/based excised duty and additional duty under the Excise Act, 2001”.
[13]
In
light of the CITT’s decision, this application for judicial review was resumed.
This application deals with the judicial review of the re-determinations issued
by the President of the CBSA affirming the recourse officer’s preliminary
decision dated November 21, 2005.
Board’s Reasons for
Decision
[14]
In
seven notices of re-determination dated February 3, 2006, the president of the
CBSA upheld the recourse officer’s assessment of the duties owing dated
November 21, 2005. At issue in this application, is the interpretation of the
definition of “duty-paid value” in section 2 of the Excise Act, 2001 as
its interpretation provides in part the formula for quantifying the duties on
imported cigars.
[15]
While
the decision under judicial review is that of the President of the CBSA, it
essentially adopted the reasons of the recourse officer dated November 21,
2005. The recourse officer reproduced the definition of “duty-paid value” in
the Excise Act, 2001:
“duty-paid value” means
(a) in respect of imported cigars, the value of the cigars as it
would be determined for the purpose of calculating an ad valorem duty on
the cigars in accordance with the Customs Act, whether or not the cigars
are subject to ad valorem duty, plus the amount of any duty imposed on
the cigars under section 42 of this Act and section 20 of the Customs Tariff;
and
(b) in respect of imported cigars that, when imported, are
contained in containers or otherwise prepared for sale, the total of the value
of the cigars as determined in accordance with paragraph (a) and the value
similarly determined of the container in which they are contained.
[16]
The
recourse officer explained that paragraph (b) applied in the case of the
applicant’s cigar imports.
[17]
The
recourse officer then went on to explain that the CBSA’s interpretation of the
reference to paragraph (a) in paragraph (b) was such that you have to take the
entire value determined in paragraph (a) and inject it into paragraph (b) and
then add the value similarly determined of the container in which the cigars
were contained. The recourse officer noted:
The
phrase “the value of the cigars as it would be determined for the purpose of
calculating an ad valorem duty on the cigars in accordance with the Customs
Act, whether or not the cigars are subject to ad valorem duty”
clearly directs us to use the transaction value to arrive at our value for the
cigars.
[18]
The
recourse officer went on to say that this interpretation was confirmed by
section 46 and subsection 47(1) of the Customs Act. Section 46
provides that “the value for duty of imported goods shall be determined in
accordance with sections 47 to 55.” Subsection 47(1) provides “the value for
duty of goods shall be appraised on the basis of the transaction value of the
goods in accordance with the conditions set out in section 48.” The wording of
the definition of “duty-paid value”, which provides how to obtain the duty-paid
value and not simply just the value, continues with the following wording “plus
the amount of any duty imposed on the cigars under section 42 of this Act and
section 20 of the Customs Tariff.” Therefore, the recourse officer
determined that the correct calculation was the total value derived in
paragraph (a), and the value similarly determined of the container in which
they are contained.
Issues
[19]
The
applicant submitted the following issues for consideration:
1. What is proper
standard of review of the re-determination by the CBSA?
2. Whether
the CBSA exceeded its jurisdiction by assessing excise and additional duties
under the Excise Act, 2001.
3. In
the alternative, should the Court decide that the CBSA has jurisdiction to
assess excise and additional duties under the Excise Act, 2001, whether
its calculation of the excise and additional duties was correct?
[20]
The
respondent raised the following issue for consideration:
1. Does
this Court have jurisdiction to hear this application for judicial review?
[21]
I
would rephrase the issues as follows:
1. Does
this Court have jurisdiction to hear this application for judicial review?
2. What
is the appropriate standard of review?
3. Did
the CBSA exceed its jurisdiction by assessing excise and additional duties
under the Excise Act, 2001?
4. If
the President of the CBSA did not exceed their jurisdiction in interpreting
sections 42 and 43 of the Excise Act, 2001 then did they
incorrectly interpret these sections?
Applicant’s Submissions
[22]
The
thrust of the applicant’s argument is that the CBSA exceeded its jurisdiction
by engaging in the statutory interpretation of certain sections of the Excise
Act, 2001. In the alternative, the applicant submitted that the CSBA
committed a reviewable error of law in their interpretation of the Excise
Act, 2001.
[23]
The
applicant submitted the appropriate standard of review is correctness. The
applicant submitted that the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Deputy
Minister of National Revenue) v. Mattel Canada Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R.
100, found that the Customs Act contained a partial privative clause.
With regards to the nature of the questions at issue, the applicant submitted
that both the issue of jurisdiction and the issue of interpretation of the
relevant statutory sections were questions of law, and as such, a high level of
deference is owed. As for the expertise of the CBSA, the applicant argued that
neither questions of jurisdiction, nor questions of statutory interpretation
were within the CBSA’s expertise of determining origin, tariff classification,
or calculation of value for duty.
[24]
The
applicant then provided submissions as to the question of jurisdiction. The
applicant submitted the CBSA’s jurisdiction is limited to (i) making
determinations regarding origin, tariff classification, and value for duty of
imported products; and (ii) assessing and collection of customs duties owing.
The applicant submitted that there is a significant difference between the mere
collection of duties owing and the interpretation of provisions of the Excise
Act, 2001, collecting falls within the jurisdiction of the CBSA,
while assessing does not.
[25]
The
applicant further submitted that even if the CBSA did have jurisdiction, it
wrongly interpreted the meaning of “duty-paid value”. The applicant submitted
that whereas the CBSA’s interpretation of “duty-paid value” includes duties
imposed under section 42 of the Excise Act, 2001 and section 20 of the Customs
Tariff, a correct interpretation does not. The applicant argued that the
CBSA’s interpretation of “duty-paid value” is flawed because:
a)
it
is inconsistent with a plain reading of the definition itself;
b)
it
is inconsistent with a similar reading of other definitions in the same section
of the Excise Act, 2001, which also cannot logically be cumulative; and
c)
the
official French definition in the same Act of “valeur a l’acquitte” does not
use the conjunction “et” (and) between the two meanings and as such, the CBSA’s
interpretation is inconsistent with a plain reading of this definition.
[26]
The
applicant noted that if this Court finds, as it should, that there are two
possible valid interpretations of the meaning “duty-paid value”, then there is
a presumption in favour of the applicant qua taxpayer. The applicant submitted
that although the principle of strict interpretation of tax legislation has
given way to a modern approach that is contextual and purposive, a residual
presumption in favour of the taxpayer remains in cases of ambiguity (see Québec
(Communauté urbaine) v. Corp. Notre-Dame de
Bon-Secours, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 3; Placer Dome Canada Ltd. v. Ontario
(Minister of Finance), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 715).
[27]
Finally,
the applicant addressed the issue of available appeal routes. The applicant
submitted that there are theoretically two appeal routes available. Firstly, an
appeal to the CITT is possible if the determination at issue is under the Customs
Act. However, the applicant submitted that the CITT has already confirmed
that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the issue is not one of a
determination under the Customs Act. The applicant submitted that if
this is a determination under the Excise Act, 2001, then an appeal lies
to the Minister of National Revenue. The applicant submitted that if this is
the appropriate appeal route, then this confirms that the assessment of
additional duties is beyond the jurisdiction of the CBSA in the first place.
Respondent’s Submissions
[28]
The
respondent submitted that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case. The
respondent argued that the Customs Act provides a comprehensive recourse
scheme to persons affected by a re-determination or further re-determination
made pursuant to section 60 of the Act. The respondent noted that this appeal
route culminates to an appeal to the CITT and thus, Parliament clearly intended
to oust judicial review under section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. F-7. The
respondent noted that in the present case, the CITT has dismissed the
applicant’s appeal on the grounds of a lack of jurisdiction, but argued that
this decision is based upon the specific manner in which the applicant framed
its appeal before the CITT. Specifically, the applicant had claimed that they
did not take issue with the classification of the goods at issue. Furthermore,
the respondent submitted that the applicant argued before the CITT that to
decide the issue would deprive them of their appeal route under the Excise
Act, 2001, which culminates to an appeal to the Tax Court of Canada. The
respondent argued that this is simply not the case as the duties at issue are
imposed under the Customs Act and as such, these appeal mechanisms under
the Excise Act, 2001 are not available to the applicant. The respondent
also noted that the matter was dealt with before the CITT as a preliminary
motion, without the benefit of oral argument.
[29]
The
respondent then went on to address the appropriate standard of review. With
regards to the presence of a privative clause, the respondent submitted that a
re-determination or further re-determination made by the president of the CBSA
pursuant to section 60 of the Customs Act, is not subject to be
restrained, prohibited, removed or otherwise dealt with except by way of an
appeal to the CITT. Thus, a high level of deference is owed by a reviewing
court. As to the expertise of the CBSA, the respondent submitted that the
calculation of duties and taxes on imported goods is a matter falling squarely
within the expertise of the CBSA. The respondent submitted that sections 59 to
68 of the Act establish a comprehensive statutory scheme governing recourse in
respect of re-determinations issued by the CBSA and as such, a significant
amount of deference is owed. The respondent submitted that as re-determinations
are highly fact specific deference is warranted. The respondent concluded that
with respect to the question of jurisdiction, the appropriate standard of
review is correctness. With respect to the issue of calculation of duties, the
applicable standard of review is patent unreasonableness, or in the
alternative, reasonableness.
[30]
The
respondent submitted that the legislation makes it clear that the CBSA has
jurisdiction to issue re-determinations regarding the excise and additional
duties owing on goods. The respondent submitted that the legislative scheme is
as follows. Section 44 of the Excise Act, 2001 provides that duties
imposed under sections 42 and 43 of the Excise Act, 2001 shall be paid
and collected under the Customs Act. Duties imposed under the Customs
Act are collected by CBSA officers. Therefore, the CBSA is responsible for
the collection of all duties and taxes on imported tobacco products. The
respondent also relied on the overall function of the Customs Act and Excise
Act, 2001 to illustrate that the duties at issue here are indeed customs
duties and not excise duties. Specifically, the respondent noted that while the
Excise Act, 2001 deals with the formula for calculating duties on
imported tobacco, it primarily deals with the scheme used to control domestic
tobacco, (ie. a licensing program). Simply put, while the calculation formula
for duties on imported tobacco is found in the Excise Act, 2001, the
actual collection and payment of these duties is under the Customs Act,
and not the Excise Act, 2001. The respondent further submitted
that the difference between the functions of the two acts is even more apparent
if we look at the appeal mechanisms. The appeal route in the Excise Act,
2001 is only available to amounts “payable” under the Excise Act, 2001
and therefore the applicant cannot avail themselves to this process. The
respondent submitted that in short, domestic tobacco products are dealt with
under the Excise Act, 2001 while imported goods, including imported
tobacco products, fall within the scheme of the Customs Act. Thus, the
collection of the duties at issue was squarely within the jurisdiction of the
CBSA and as such, there exists no reviewable error of jurisdiction.
[31]
With
regards to the applicant’s submission that the CBSA wrongly interpreted
“duty-paid value”, the respondent submitted that the CBSA correctly applied the
calculation method set out in the definition of “duty-paid value”. The
respondent submitted that an examination of the plain wording of the definition
of “duty-paid value” provides that under paragraph (b) (which the parties agree
is the applicable paragraph), the “duty-paid value” of cigars imported in
plastic containers is based on the total value of the cigars as
determined in paragraph (a), plus the value similarly determined for the
containers. As paragraph (a) includes the value of the cigars plus the section
42 duty, the section 42 duty must be included in the calculation of the
“duty-paid value” for the purposes of paragraph (b). The respondent also
submitted that the modern approach to statutory interpretation is that the
words of an act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical
and ordinary sense keeping in mind the entire scheme, the purpose of the act
and Parliament’s intent (see Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. Re., [1998] 1
S.C.R. 27 at paragraph 21). The respondent further submitted that the
applicant’s referral to a residual presumption in favour of the taxpayer only
applies in exceptional cases where the ordinary principles of statutory interpretation
cannot resolve the issue. The present case is not one of those cases since the
meaning of “duty-paid value” is clear from a plain reading of the definition
itself.
Analysis and Decision
[32]
As
the respondent raised a question regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to
hear the present case, I will first address this issue.
[33]
Issue
3
Does this Court have
jurisdiction to hear this application for judicial review?
The respondent submitted that
the Federal Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case as the applicant has a
statutory right of appeal to the CITT. The applicant submitted that as
evidenced by the CITT’s decision dated October 31, 2006, the CITT does not have
the jurisdiction to hear the issues raised in this case.
[34]
Section
18.1 of the Federal Courts Act provides anyone directly affected by a
decision the opportunity to apply to this Court for an application of judicial
review in respect of the decision of a federal board, commission, and tribunal.
However, section 18.5 precludes judicial review by the Federal Court in respect
of a decision of a federal board where there already exists a statutory right
of appeal to an enumerated body. Subsection 28(2) extends the limitation
proscribed in section 18.5 to decisions of federal boards that are subject to
the supervisory jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Appeal. The CITT is one of
the federal boards enumerated in subsection 28(2). Thus, it must now be
determined whether or not in the case before the Court, the applicant has a
right to appeal to the CITT.
[35]
I
begin by looking at the legislative mechanism for appeals in the Customs Act.
Subsection 60(1) of the Customs Act provides:
60.(1) A person to whom notice is given under subsection 59(2) in
respect of goods may, within ninety days after the notice is given, request a
re-determination or further re-determination of origin, tariff classification,
value for duty or marking. The request may be made only after all amounts owing
as duties and interest in respect of the goods are paid or security satisfactory
to the Minister is given in respect of the total amount owing.
[36]
Essentially,
a person who has received notice under subsection 59(2) may make a request to
the President of the CBSA for a re-determination or further re-determination of
origin, tariff classification, value for duty or marking. The President then
takes one of the actions listed in subsection 60(4) and gives notice to the
person who made the request as per subsection 60(5). If an applicant is not
satisfied with the decision of the President made under section 60, they may
further appeal that decision to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal
pursuant to subsection 67(1) of the Act:
67.(1) A person aggrieved by a
decision of the President made under section 60 or 61 may appeal from the
decision to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal by filing a notice of
appeal in writing with the President and the Secretary of the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal within ninety days after the time notice of the
decision was given.
[37]
The language used in these sections appears to indicate that the
appeal procedure outlined above is available to the applicant; a decision was
rendered by the President of the CBSA under subsection 60(1), and thus
subsection 67(1) was activated.
[38]
While procedurally it appears that the applicant has a right of
appeal to the CITT, it was argued by the applicant that the CITT has no
jurisdiction over the substance of the questions at issue. The jurisdiction of
the CITT can be found in its enabling statue, the Canadian International
Trade Tribunal Act, R.S., 1985, c. 47 (4th Supp.). Sections 16 and 17 deal
with the powers, duties and functions of the CITT. The relevant subsection for
the purpose of this case is subsection 16(c) which states:
16. The duties and functions of
the Tribunal are to
c) hear, determine and deal with all appeals that, pursuant to any
other Act of Parliament or regulations thereunder, may be made to the Tribunal,
and all matters related thereto; and . . .
[39]
It is clear that the appeal mechanism provided in subsection 67(1)
of the Customs Act meets the necessary criteria to fall within the
jurisdiction of the CITT under subsection 16(c). The words “and all matters
related thereto” appear to indicate that the CITT has a broad jurisdiction when
it comes to appeals. I do note, however, that the CITT’s jurisdiction is
limited in that under subsection 67(1) of the Customs Act only decisions
from the President of the CBSA’s regarding the re-determination of origin,
tariff classification, value for duty or marking can be appealled. That is to
say that the subject matter of appeals to the CITT is limited to the
re-determination of origin, tariff classification, value for duty or marking
under subsection 67(1) of the Customs Act. Thus, the remaining issue is
whether or not the issues raised by the applicant are in relation to the
re-determination of the value for duty by the President of the CBSA.
[40]
The applicant submitted that the issues raised are not in relation
to the re-determination of the value for duty by the President of the CBSA, but
yet are questions of statutory interpretation. Furthermore, the applicant
submitted that the duties in question are excise duties proscribed by sections
42 and 43 of the Excise Act, 2001 and as such, the right to appeal under
subsection 67(1) of the Customs Act does not apply to the applicant. I
do not accept these arguments.
[41]
In relation to the submission that this is not an issue of
re-determination of value for duty, I find that it is unrealistic for the
applicant to claim that they are not taking issue with the re-determination of
the value for duty. Whether a party is challenging the amount the value for
duty is valued at or the procedure for calculating that amount, they are
nonetheless challenging the re-determination of the duty for value. In my
opinion, the amount and the procedure for reaching that amount are
interrelated; the distinction alleged by the applicant is artificial. When the
President of the CBSA approves an amount such as the duty for value, it is implicit
that they are also approving the method of calculation used to derive that
amount. The CITT has jurisdiction to decide questions of law, such as the
interpretation of a certain section, in relation to the re-determination of a
value for duty (Mattel, above). These decisions of law are then
reviewable by the Federal Court of Appeal on a standard of correctness (Mattel,
above).
[42]
As for whether or not these duties are excise duties and thus not
eligible to be appealed to the CITT, I am also not convinced that this is the
case. While the method for calculating these duties is found in sections 42 and
43 of the Excise Act, 2001, the entire scheme governing their
determination, re-determination, appeal, collection and payment is governed by
the Customs Act.
[43]
Section 2 of the Customs Act reads:
“duties” means any duties or taxes levied or imposed on imported
goods under the Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, 2001, the Excise
Tax Act, the Special Import Measures Act or any other Act of
Parliament, but, for the purposes of subsection 3(1), paragraphs 59(3)(b
) and 65(1)(b ), sections 69 and 73 and subsections 74(1), 75(2) and
76(1), does not include taxes imposed under Part IX of the Excise Tax Act;
[emphasis added]
Furthermore,
section 44 of the Excise Act, 2001 reads:
44. The duties imposed under
sections 42 and 43 on imported raw leaf tobacco and tobacco products shall
be paid and collected under the Customs Act, and interest and
penalties shall be imposed, calculated, paid and collected under that Act, as
if the duties were a duty levied under section 20 of the Customs Tariff,
and, for those purposes, the Customs Act applies with any modifications
that the circumstances require. [emphasis
added]
[44]
These sections make it clear that while the method for determining
the amount of value for duty is found in sections 42 and 43 of the Excise
Act, these duties are customs duties. These duties are assessed by customs
officers under the Customs Act and these assessments are subject to
re-determinations under section 60 of the Customs Act.
[45]
Having found that the applicant is taking issue with the
re-determination of the value for duty made by the President of the CBSA under
section 60, it follows that the CITT has jurisdiction and as such, the
applicant has a statutory right of appeal under section 18.5 of the Federal
Courts Act, therefore baring judicial review by this Court.
[46]
In a decision dated October 31, 2006, the CITT granted a motion by
the applicant to dismiss their appeal on the basis that the CITT lacked the
necessary jurisdiction to decide the issues raised. I think it is necessary to
note the following observations with respect to the CITT’s decision.
[47]
Firstly, in its decision, the CITT found that the applicant was
not challenging the re-determination of the value for duty, but yet the
procedure provided in sections 42 and 43 of the Excise Act, 2001 which
stipulate how to calculate the value for duty. In Tran v. Canada
(National Revenue for Customs and Excise), [1990] C.I.T.T. No. 37, the CITT
in assessing whether or not a procedure was correctly followed for determining
the appropriate exchange rate stated:
On the final issue of exchange rate, the Tribunal finds that
customs officials followed the correct procedures, as outlined in the Currency
Exchange for Customs Valuation Regulations, in determining the value for duty
and, accordingly, used the correct rate of exchange.
[48]
This would indicate that in the past, the CITT has found it within
their jurisdiction to make findings as to whether or not the correct procedure
and calculation were followed to derive a certain value.
[49]
Secondly, I think it is necessary to address the concern expressed
by the CITT in their decision that to hear the appeal would be to deny the
applicant the appeal mechanisms in sections 195 to 205 of the Excise Act,
2001. The appeal scheme provided in these sections is only triggered once
the Minister has made an assessment of the duties payable under section 188 of
the Excise Act, 2001. Section 188 limits the Minister’s assessment power
to duties payable under the Excise Act, 2001:
188. (1) The Minister may assess
(a)
the duty payable by a person for a fiscal month of the person; and
(b)
subject to section 190, interest and any other amount payable by a person
under this Act. [emphasis
added]
[50]
As already discussed, section 44 of the Excise Act, 2001 provides
that the duties imposed under sections 42 and 43 of the Excise Act, 2001
(which are the issue of this judicial review) are to be paid and collected under
the Customs Act. Therefore, it appears that the applicant would not have
been able to avail itself of the appeal mechanisms provided in the Excise
Act, 2001 and the CITT’s concerns were unwarranted.
[51]
On a third and final note, the motion before the CITT was heard as
a preliminary motion and did not have the benefit that this Court has in
hearing oral arguments on the merits of the case.
[52]
In my opinion, the applicant does have a statutory right of
appeal to the CITT. Consequently, this Court’s jurisdiction under section 18.1
of the Federal Courts Act is ousted via section 18.5 and subsection
28(2).
[53]
As
a result of this finding, the application for judicial review must be dismissed
with costs to the respondent.
[54]
Because
of my finding on this issue, I will not deal with the remaining issues.
JUDGMENT
[55]
IT
IS ORDERED that the application for judicial review is dismissed with costs
to the respondent.
“John
A. O’Keefe”
ANNEX
Relevant
Statutory Provisions
The
relevant statutory provisions are set out in this section.
The Customs
Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-1:
|
2.(1)
In this Act,
"duties"
means any duties or taxes levied or imposed on imported goods under the
Customs Tariff, the Excise Act, 2001, the Excise Tax Act, the Special Import
Measures Act or any other Act of Parliament, but, for the purposes of
subsection 3(1), paragraphs 59(3)(b ) and 65(1)(b ), sections 69 and 73 and
subsections 74(1), 75(2) and 76(1), does not include taxes imposed under Part
IX of the Excise Tax Act;
58.(1) Any
officer, or any officer within a class of officers, designated by the
President for the purposes of this section, may determine the origin, tariff
classification and value for duty of imported goods at or before the time
they are accounted for under subsection 32(1), (3) or (5).
(2) If the
origin, tariff classification and value for duty of imported goods are not
determined under subsection (1), the origin, tariff classification and value
for duty of the goods are deemed to be determined, for the purposes of this
Act, to be as declared by the person accounting for the goods in the form
prescribed under paragraph 32(1)(a). That determination is deemed to be made
at the time the goods are accounted for under subsection 32(1), (3) or (5).
(3) A
determination made under this section is not subject to be restrained,
prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with except to the extent
and in the manner provided by sections 59 to 61.
59.(1)
An officer, or any officer within a class of officers, designated by the
President for the purposes of this section may
(a) in the
case of a determination under section 57.01 or 58, re-determine the origin, tariff
classification, value for duty or marking determination of any imported goods
at any time within
(i) four years
after the date of the determination, on the basis of an audit or examination
under section 42, a verification under section 42.01 or a verification of
origin under section 42.1, or
(ii) four
years after the date of the determination, if the Minister considers it
advisable to make the re-determination; and
(b) further
re-determine the origin, tariff classification or value for duty of imported
goods, within four years after the date of the determination or, if the
Minister deems it advisable, within such further time as may be prescribed,
on the basis of an audit or examination under section 42, a verification
under section 42.01 or a verification of origin under section 42.1 that is
conducted after the granting of a refund under paragraphs 74(1)(c.1), (c.11),
(e), (f) or (g) that is treated by subsection 74(1.1) as a re-determination
under paragraph (a) or the making of a correction under section 32.2 that is
treated by subsection 32.2(3) as a re-determination under paragraph (a).
(2) An officer
who makes a determination under subsection 57.01(1) or 58(1) or a
re-determination or further re-determination under subsection (1) shall without
delay give notice of the determination, re-determination or further
re-determination, including the rationale on which it is made, to the
prescribed persons.
(3) Every
prescribed person who is given notice of a determination, re-determination or
further re-determination under subsection (2) shall, in accordance with that
decision,
(a) pay any
amount owing, or additional amount owing, as the case may be, as duties in
respect of the goods or, if a request is made under section 60, pay that
amount or give security satisfactory to the Minister in respect of that
amount and any interest owing or that may become owing on that amount; or
(b) be given a
refund of any duties, or a refund of any duties and interest paid (other than
interest that was paid because duties were not paid when required by
subsection 32(5) or section 33), in excess of the duties owing in respect of
the goods.
(4) Any amount owing by or to a person
under subsection (3) or 66(3) in respect of goods, other than an amount in
respect of which security is given, is payable immediately, whether or not a
request is made under section 60.
(5) For the
purposes of paragraph (3)(a), the amount owing as duties in respect of goods
under subsection (3) as a result of a determination made under subsection
58(1) does not include any amount owing as duties in respect of the goods
under section 32 or 33.
(6) A
re-determination or further re-determination made under this section is not
subject to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt
with except to the extent and in the manner provided by subsection 59(1) and
sections 60 and 61.
60.(1) A
person to whom notice is given under subsection 59(2) in respect of goods
may, within ninety days after the notice is given, request a re-determination
or further re-determination of origin, tariff classification, value for duty
or marking. The request may be made only after all amounts owing as duties
and interest in respect of the goods are paid or security satisfactory to the
Minister is given in respect of the total amount owing.
(2) A person
may request a review of an advance ruling made under section 43.1 within
ninety days after it is given to the person.
(3) A request
under this section must be made to the President in the prescribed form and
manner, with the prescribed information.
(4) On receipt
of a request under this section, the President shall, without delay,
(a)
re-determine or further re-determine the origin, tariff classification or
value for duty;
(b) affirm,
revise or reverse the advance ruling; or
(c)
re-determine or further re-determine the marking determination.
(5) The
President shall without delay give notice of a decision made under subsection
(4), including the rationale on which the decision is made, to the person who
made the request.
61.(1)
The President may
(a)
re-determine or further re-determine the origin, tariff classification or
value for duty of imported goods
(i) at any
time after a re-determination or further re-determination is made under
paragraph 60(4)(a), but before an appeal is heard under section 67, on the
recommendation of the Attorney General of Canada, if the re-determination or
further re-determination would reduce duties payable on the goods,
(ii) at any
time, if the person who accounted for the goods under subsection 32(1), (3)
or (5) fails to comply with any provision of this Act or the regulations or
commits an offence under this Act in respect of the goods, and
(iii) at any
time, if the re-determination or further re-determination would give effect
to a decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Federal Court
of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada made in respect of the goods;
(b)
re-determine or further re-determine the marking determination of imported
goods
(i) within
four years after the date the determination was made under section 57.01, if
the Minister considers it advisable to make the re-determination,
(ii) at any
time, if the person who is given notice of a marking determination under
section 57.01 or of a re-determination under paragraph 59(1)(a) fails to
comply with any provision of this Act or the regulations or commits an
offence under this Act in respect of the goods,
(iii) at any
time, if the re-determination or further re-determination would give effect
to a decision made in respect of the goods by the Canadian International
Trade Tribunal, the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada,
and
(iv) at any
time after a re-determination is made under paragraph 60(4)(c), but before an
appeal is heard under section 67, on the recommendation of the Attorney
General of Canada; and
(c)
re-determine or further re-determine the origin, tariff classification or
value for duty of imported goods (in this paragraph referred to as the
“subsequent goods”), at any time, if the re-determination or further
re-determination would give effect, in respect of the subsequent goods, to a
decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Federal Court of
Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada, or of the President under subparagraph
(a)(i),
(i) that
relates to the origin or tariff classification of other like goods imported
by the same importer or owner on or before the date of importation of the
subsequent goods, or
(ii) that
relates to the manner of determining the value for duty of other goods
previously imported by the same importer or owner on or before the date of
importation of the subsequent goods.
(2) If the
President makes a re-determination or further re-determination under this
section, the President shall without delay give notice of that decision,
including the rationale on which the decision is made, to the prescribed
persons.
67.(1) A
person aggrieved by a decision of the President made under section 60 or 61
may appeal from the decision to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal by
filing a notice of appeal in writing with the President and the Secretary of
the Canadian International Trade Tribunal within ninety days after the time
notice of the decision was given.
(2) Before
making a decision under this section, the Canadian International Trade
Tribunal shall provide for a hearing and shall publish a notice thereof in
the Canada Gazette at least twenty-one days prior to the day of the hearing,
and any person who, on or before the day of the hearing, enters an appearance
with the Secretary of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal may be heard
on the appeal.
(3) On an
appeal under subsection (1), the Canadian International Trade Tribunal may
make such order, finding or declaration as the nature of the matter may
require, and an order, finding or declaration made under this section is not
subject to review or to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or
otherwise dealt with except to the extent and in the manner provided by
section 68.
68.(1) Any of
the parties to an appeal under section 67, namely,
(a) the person
who appealed,
(b) the
President, or
(c) any person
who entered an appearance in accordance with subsection 67(2),
may, within
ninety days after the date a decision is made under section 67, appeal
therefrom to the Federal Court of Appeal on any question of law.
(2) The
Federal Court of Appeal may dispose of an appeal by making such order or
finding as the nature of the matter may require or by referring the matter
back to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal for re-hearing.
|
2.(1)
Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent à la présente loi.
«droits » Les
droits ou taxes imposés, en vertu de la Loi de 2001 sur l’accise, de la Loi
sur la taxe d’accise, de la Loi sur les mesures spéciales d’importation, du
Tarif des douanes ou de toute autre loi fédérale, sur les marchandises
importées. En sont exclues, pour l’application du paragraphe 3(1), des
alinéas 59(3)b) et 65(1)b), des articles 69 et 73 et des paragraphes 74(1),
75(2) et 76(1), les taxes imposées en vertu de la partie IX de la Loi sur la
taxe d’accise.
58.(1) L’agent chargé par le
président, individuellement ou au titre de son appartenance à une catégorie
d’agents, de l’application du présent article peut déterminer l’origine, le
classement tarifaire et la valeur en douane des marchandises importées au
plus tard au moment de leur déclaration en détail faite en vertu des
paragraphes 32(1), (3) ou (5).
(2)
Pour l’application de la présente loi, l’origine, le classement tarifaire et
la valeur en douane des marchandises importées qui n’ont pas été déterminés
conformément au paragraphe (1) sont considérés comme ayant été déterminés
selon les énonciations portées par l’auteur de la déclaration en détail en la
forme réglementaire sous le régime de l’alinéa 32(1)a). Cette détermination est réputée avoir
été faite au moment de la déclaration en détail faite en vertu des
paragraphes 32(1), (3) ou (5).
(3)
La détermination faite en vertu du présent article n’est susceptible de
restriction, d’interdiction, d’annulation, de rejet ou de toute autre forme
d’intervention que dans la mesure et selon les modalités prévues aux articles
59 à 61.
59.(1)
L’agent chargé par le président, individuellement ou au titre de son
appartenance à une catégorie d’agents, de l’application du présent article
peut:
a)
dans le cas d’une décision prévue à l’article 57.01 ou d’une détermination
prévue à l’article 58, réviser l’origine, le classement tarifaire ou la
valeur en douane des marchandises importées, ou procéder à la révision de la
décision sur la conformité des marques de ces marchandises, dans les délais
suivants:
(i) dans les
quatre années suivant la date de la détermination, d’après les résultats de
la vérification ou de l’examen visé à l’article 42, de la vérification prévue
à l’article 42.01 ou de la vérification de l’origine prévue à l’article 42.1,
(ii) dans les
quatre années suivant la date de la détermination, si le ministre l’estime
indiqué;
b)
réexaminer l’origine, le classement tarifaire ou la valeur en douane dans les
quatre années suivant la date de la détermination ou, si le ministre l’estime
indiqué, dans le délai réglementaire d’après les résultats de la vérification
ou de l’examen visé à l’article 42, de la vérification prévue à l’article
42.01 ou de la vérification de l’origine prévue à l’article 42.1 effectuée à
la suite soit d’un remboursement accordé en application des alinéas 74(1)
c.1), c.11), e), f) ou g) qui est assimilé, conformément au paragraphe
74(1.1), à une révision au titre de l’alinéa a), soit d’une correction
effectuée en application de l’article 32.2 qui est assimilée, conformément au
paragraphe 32.2(3), à une révision au titre de l’alinéa a).
(2)
L’agent qui procède à la décision ou à la détermination en vertu des
paragraphes 57.01(1) ou 58(1) respectivement ou à la révision ou au réexamen
en vertu du paragraphe (1) donne sans délai avis de ses conclusions, motifs à
l’appui, aux personnes visées par règlement.
(3)
Les personnes visées par règlement qui ont été avisées de la décision, de la
détermination, de la révision ou du réexamen en application du paragraphe (2)
doivent, en conformité avec la décision, la détermination, la révision ou le
réexamen, selon le cas:
a) soit verser
tous droits ou tout complément de droits échus sur les marchandises ou, dans
le cas où une demande est présentée en application de l’article 60, soit
verser ces droits ou compléments de droits, soit donner la garantie, jugée
satisfaisante par le ministre, du versement de ceux-ci et des intérêts échus
ou à échoir sur ceux-ci;
b) soit
recevoir le remboursement de tout excédent de droits ou de tout excédent de
droits et d’intérêts — sauf les intérêts payés en raison du non-paiement de
droits dans le délai prévu au paragraphe 32(5) ou à l’article 33 — versé sur
les marchandises.
(4)
Les sommes qu’une personne doit ou qui lui sont dues en application des
paragraphes (3) ou 66(3) sur les marchandises, à l’exception des sommes pour
lesquelles une garantie a été donnée, sont à payer sans délai, même si une
demande a été présentée en vertu de l’article 60.
(5)
Pour l’application de l’alinéa (3)a), le montant de droits dû sur les
marchandises en application du paragraphe (3) à la suite de la détermination
faite en vertu du paragraphe 58(1) ne comprend pas un montant dû sur
celles-ci en application des articles 32 ou 33.
(6)
La révision ou le réexamen fait en vertu du présent article ne sont
susceptibles de restriction, d’interdiction, d’annulation, de rejet ou de
toute autre forme d’intervention que dans la mesure et selon les modalités
prévues au paragraphe 59(1) ou aux articles 60 ou 61.
60.(1) Toute personne avisée en
application du paragraphe 59(2) peut, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant
la notification de l’avis et après avoir versé tous droits et intérêts dus
sur des marchandises ou avoir donné la garantie, jugée satisfaisante par le
ministre, du versement du montant de ces droits et intérêts, demander la
révision ou le réexamen de l’origine, du classement tarifaire ou de la valeur
en douane, ou d’une décision sur la conformité des marques.
(2)
Toute personne qui a reçu une décision anticipée prise en application de
l’article 43.1 peut, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la notification
de la décision anticipée, en demander la révision.
(3)
La demande prévue au présent article est présentée au président en la forme
et selon les modalités réglementaires et avec les renseignements
réglementaires.
(4)
Sur réception de la demande prévue au présent article, le président procède
sans délai à l’une des interventions suivantes:
a) la révision
ou le réexamen de l’origine, du classement tarifaire ou de la valeur en
douane;
b) la
confirmation, la modification ou l’annulation de la décision anticipée;
c) la révision
ou le réexamen de la décision sur la conformité des marques.
(5)
Le président donne avis au demandeur, sans délai, de la décision qu’il a
prise en application du paragraphe (4), motifs à l’appui.
61.(1)
Le président peut procéder:
a)
à la révision ou au réexamen de l’origine, du classement tarifaire ou de la
valeur en douane des marchandises importées:
(i) à tout
moment après la révision ou le réexamen visé à l’alinéa 60(4)a), mais avant
l’audition de l’appel prévu à l’article 67, sur recommandation du procureur
général du Canada, dans les cas où la révision ou le
réexamen réduirait les droits exigibles sur les marchandises,
(ii)
à tout moment, si la personne qui a déclaré en détail les marchandises en
cause, en application des paragraphes 32(1), (3) ou (5), ne s’est pas
conformée à la présente loi ou à ses règlements, ou a enfreint les
dispositions de la présente loi applicables aux marchandises,
(iii) à tout
moment, dans le cas où la révision ou le réexamen donnerait effet à une
décision du Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur, de la Cour d’appel
fédérale ou de la Cour suprême du Canada rendue au sujet des marchandises;
b)
à la révision ou au réexamen de la décision sur la conformité des marques des
marchandises importées:
(i) dans les
quatre années suivant la date de la prise de la décision en vertu de
l’article 57.01, si le ministre l’estime indiqué,
(ii)
à tout moment, si le destinataire de l’avis de la décision prise sur la
conformité des marques en application de l’article 57.01 ou d’une révision
faite en vertu de l’alinéa 59(1)a) ne s’est pas conformé à la présente loi ou
à ses règlements, ou a enfreint les dispositions de la présente loi
applicables aux marchandises,
(iii)
à tout moment, dans le cas où la révision ou le réexamen donnerait effet à
une décision du Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur, de la Cour d’appel
fédérale ou de la Cour suprême du Canada rendue au sujet des marchandises,
(iv)
à tout moment après la révision visée à l’alinéa 60(4)c), mais avant
l’audition de l’appel prévu à l’article 67, sur recommandation du procureur
général du Canada;
c)
à la révision ou au réexamen de l’origine, du classement tarifaire ou de la
valeur en douane des marchandises importées, à tout moment, dans le cas où la
révision ou le réexamen donnerait effet, pour ce qui est des marchandises en
cause, à une décision du Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur, de la Cour
d’appel fédérale ou de la Cour suprême du Canada, ou du président en
application du sous-alinéa a)(i):
(i) qui porte
sur l’origine ou le classement tarifaire d’autres marchandises semblables
importées par le même importateur ou propriétaire le jour de l’importation
des marchandises en cause ou antérieurement,
(ii) qui porte
sur le mode de détermination de la valeur en douane d’autres marchandises
importées par le même importateur ou propriétaire le jour de l’importation
des marchandises en cause ou antérieurement.
(2)
Le président qui procède à une révision ou à un réexamen en application du
présent article donne sans délai avis de sa décision, motifs à l’appui, aux
personnes visées par règlement.
67.(1) Toute personne qui
s’estime lésée par une décision du président rendue conformément aux articles
60 ou 61 peut en interjeter appel devant le Tribunal canadien du commerce
extérieur en déposant par écrit un avis d’appel auprès du président et du
secrétaire de ce Tribunal dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la
notification de l’avis de décision.
(2)
Avant de se prononcer sur l’appel prévu par le présent article, le Tribunal
canadien du commerce extérieur tient une audience sur préavis d’au moins
vingt et un jours publié dans la Gazette du Canada, et toute personne peut
être entendue à l’appel si, au plus tard le jour de l’audience, elle a remis
un acte de comparution au secrétaire de ce Tribunal.
(3)
Le Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur peut statuer sur l’appel prévu au
paragraphe (1), selon la nature de l’espèce, par ordonnance, constatation ou
déclaration, celles-ci n’étant susceptibles de recours, de restriction,
d’interdiction, d’annulation, de rejet ou de toute autre forme d’intervention
que dans la mesure et selon les modalités prévues à l’article 68.
68.(1)
La décision sur l’appel prévu à l’article 67 est, dans les quatre-vingt-dix
jours suivant la date où elle est rendue, susceptible de recours devant la
Cour d’appel fédérale sur tout point de droit, de la part de toute partie à
l’appel, à savoir:
a) l’appelant;
b) le
président;
c) quiconque a
remis l’acte de comparution visé au paragraphe 67(2).
(2)
La Cour d’appel fédérale peut statuer sur le recours, selon la nature de
l’espèce, par ordonnance ou constatation, ou renvoyer l’affaire au Tribunal
canadien du commerce extérieur pour une nouvelle audience.
|
The Excise
Act, 2001, S.C. 2002, c.22 :
|
2. The
definitions in this section apply in this Act.
"duty-paid
value" means
(a) in respect
of imported cigars, the value of the cigars as it would be determined for the
purpose of calculating an ad valorem duty on the cigars in accordance with
the Customs Act, whether or not the cigars are subject to ad valorem duty,
plus the amount of any duty imposed on the cigars under section 42 of this
Act and section 20 of the Customs Tariff; and
(b) in respect
of imported cigars that, when imported, are contained in containers or
otherwise prepared for sale, the total of the value of the cigars as
determined in accordance with paragraph (a) and the value similarly
determined of the container in which they are contained.
42.(1) Duty is
imposed on tobacco products manufactured in Canada or imported and on
imported raw leaf tobacco at the rates set out in Schedule 1 and is payable
(a) in the
case of tobacco products manufactured in Canada,
by the tobacco licensee who manufactured the tobacco products, at the time
they are packaged; and
(b) in the
case of imported tobacco products or raw leaf tobacco, by the importer, owner
or other person who is liable under the Customs Act to pay duty levied under section
20 of the Customs Tariff or who would be liable to pay that duty on the
tobacco or products if they were subject to that duty.
(2) The
following rules apply to partially manufactured tobacco that is imported by a
tobacco licensee for further manufacture:
(a) for the
purposes of this Act, the tobacco is deemed to be manufactured in Canada by the licensee; and
(b) paragraph
(1)(a) applies to the tobacco and paragraph (1)(b) and section 44 do not
apply.
43. In
addition to the duty imposed under section 42, duty is imposed on cigars at
the rates set out in Schedule 2 and is payable
(a) in the
case of cigars manufactured and sold in Canada, by the tobacco licensee who
manufactured the cigars, at the time of their delivery to a purchaser; and
(b) in the
case of imported cigars, by the importer, owner or other person who is liable
under the Customs Act to pay duty levied under section 20 of the Customs
Tariff or who would be liable to pay that duty on the cigars if they were
subject to that duty.
44. The duties
imposed under sections 42 and 43 on imported raw leaf tobacco and tobacco
products shall be paid and collected under the Customs Act, and interest and
penalties shall be imposed, calculated, paid and collected under that Act, as
if the duties were a duty levied under section 20 of the Customs Tariff, and,
for those purposes, the Customs Act applies with any modifications that the
circumstances require.
188.(1)
The Minister may assess
(a) the duty
payable by a person for a fiscal month of the person; and
(b) subject to
section 190, interest and any other amount payable by a person under this
Act.
. . .
195.(1) Any
person who has been assessed and who objects to the assessment may, within 90
days after the date of the notice of the assessment, file with the Minister a
notice of objection in the prescribed form and manner setting out the reasons
for the objection and all relevant facts.
. . .
198.(1)
Subject to subsection (2), a person who has filed a notice of objection to an
assessment may appeal to the Tax Court to have the assessment vacated or a
reassessment made after
(a) the
Minister has confirmed the assessment or has reassessed; or
(b) 180 days
have elapsed after the filing of the notice of objection and the Minister has
not notified the person that the Minister has vacated or confirmed the
assessment or has reassessed.
(2) No appeal
under subsection (1) may be instituted after the expiry of 90 days after
notice that the Minister has reassessed or confirmed the assessment is sent
to the person under subsection 195(10).
(3) The Tax
Court may, on any terms that it sees fit, authorize a person who has
instituted an appeal in respect of a matter to amend the appeal to include
any further assessment in respect of the matter that the person is entitled
under this section to appeal.
|
2. Les
définitions qui suivent s’appliquent à la présente loi.
«valeur à
l’acquitté »
a) En ce qui
concerne les cigares importés, leur valeur telle qu’elle serait déterminée
pour le calcul d’un droit ad valorem sur les cigares conformément à la Loi
sur les douanes, qu’ils soient ou non sujets à un tel droit, plus les droits
afférents imposés en vertu de l’article 42 de la présente loi et de l’article
20 du Tarif des douanes;
b)
en ce qui concerne les cigares importés qui, au moment de leur importation,
se trouvent dans des contenants ou sont autrement préparés pour la vente, la
somme de leur valeur, déterminée selon l’alinéa a), et de la valeur,
déterminée de façon analogue, du contenant les renfermant.
42.(1) Un droit sur les
produits du tabac fabriqués au Canada ou importés et sur le tabac en feuilles
importé est imposé aux taux figurant à l’annexe 1 et est exigible:
a) dans le cas
de produits du tabac fabriqués au Canada, du titulaire de licence de tabac qui
les a fabriqués, au moment de leur emballage;
b)
dans le cas de produits du tabac ou de tabac en feuilles importés, de
l’importateur, du propriétaire ou d’une autre personne qui est tenue, aux
termes de la Loi sur les douanes, de payer les droits perçus en vertu de
l’article 20 du Tarif des douanes ou qui serait tenue de payer ces droits sur
les produits ou le tabac s’ils y étaient assujettis.
(2)
Les règles suivantes s’appliquent au tabac partiellement fabriqué qu’un
titulaire de licence de tabac importe pour une étape ultérieure de
fabrication:
a) pour
l’application de la présente loi, le tabac est réputé être fabriqué au Canada par le titulaire de licence;
b)
l’alinéa (1)a) s’applique au tabac, mais l’alinéa (1)b) et l’article 44 ne
s’y appliquent pas.
43. Est imposé aux taux
figurant à l’annexe 2, en plus du droit imposé en vertu de l’article 42, un
droit sur les cigares qui sont fabriqués et vendus au Canada ou importés. Ce droit est exigible:
a) dans le cas
de cigares fabriqués et vendus au Canada, du titulaire de licence de tabac qui
les a fabriqués, au moment de leur livraison à l’acheteur;
b)
dans le cas de cigares importés, de l’importateur, du propriétaire ou d’une
autre personne qui est tenue, aux termes de la Loi sur les douanes, de payer
les droits perçus en vertu de l’article 20 du Tarif des douanes ou qui serait
tenue de payer ces droits sur les cigares s’ils y étaient assujettis.
44.
Les droits imposés en vertu des articles 42 et 43 sur les produits du tabac
et le tabac en feuilles importés sont payés et perçus aux termes de la Loi
sur les douanes. Des
intérêts et pénalités sont imposés, calculés, payés et perçus aux termes de
cette loi comme si les droits étaient des droits perçus en vertu de l’article
20 du Tarif des douanes. À ces fins, la Loi sur les douanes s’applique, avec
les adaptations nécessaires.
188.(1)
Le ministre peut établir une cotisation pour déterminer:
a) les droits
exigibles d’une personne pour un mois d’exercice;
b)
sous réserve de l’article 190, les intérêts et autres sommes exigibles d’une
personne en application de la présente loi.
. . .
195.(1) La personne qui fait
opposition à la cotisation établie à son égard peut, dans les
quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la date de l’avis de cotisation, présenter au
ministre un avis d’opposition, en la forme et selon les modalités autorisées
par celui-ci, exposant les motifs de son opposition et tous les faits
pertinents.
. . .
198.(1) Sous réserve du
paragraphe (2), la personne qui a produit un avis d’opposition à une
cotisation peut interjeter appel à la Cour de l’impôt pour faire annuler la
cotisation ou en faire établir une nouvelle lorsque, selon le cas:
a) la
cotisation est confirmée par le ministre ou une nouvelle cotisation est
établie;
b)
un délai de cent quatre-vingts jours suivant la production de l’avis a expiré
sans que le ministre ait notifié la personne du fait qu’il a annulé ou
confirmé la cotisation ou procédé à une nouvelle cotisation.
(2) Nul appel ne peut être
interjeté après l’expiration d’un délai de quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant
l’envoi à la personne, aux termes du paragraphe 195(10), d’un avis portant
que le ministre a confirmé la cotisation ou procédé à une nouvelle
cotisation.
(3)
La Cour de l’impôt peut, de la manière qu’elle estime indiquée, autoriser une
personne ayant interjeté appel sur une question à modifier l’appel de façon à
ce qu’il porte sur toute cotisation ultérieure concernant la question qui
peut faire l’objet d’un appel en vertu du présent article.
|
The Canadian
International Trade Tribunal Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 47:
|
16. The duties and functions of the
Tribunal are to
(a) conduct
inquiries and report on matters referred to the Tribunal for inquiry by the
Governor in Council or the Minister under this Act;
(a.1) conduct
mid-term reviews under section 19.02 and report on the reviews;
(b) consider
complaints and extension requests filed with the Tribunal by domestic
producers of like or directly competitive goods under this Act and, where
appropriate, conduct inquiries into the complaints and extension requests and
report on them;
(b.1) receive
complaints, conduct inquiries and make determinations under sections 30.1 to
30.19;
(c) hear,
determine and deal with all appeals that, pursuant to any other Act of
Parliament or regulations thereunder, may be made to the Tribunal, and all
matters related thereto; and
(d) exercise
and perform such other duties or functions that, pursuant to any other Act of
Parliament or regulations thereunder, shall or may be exercised or performed
by the Tribunal.
|
16.
Le Tribunal a pour mission:
a) d’enquêter
et de faire rapport sur les questions dont le saisit, en application de la
présente loi, le gouverneur en conseil ou le ministre;
a.1)
de procéder aux examens visés à l’article 19.02 et faire rapport sur ceux-ci;
b)
d’étudier les plaintes et les demandes de prorogation déposées sous le régime
de la présente loi par les producteurs nationaux de marchandises similaires
ou directement concurrentes et, s’il y a lieu, d’enquêter et de faire rapport
à leur égard;
b.1)
de recevoir des plaintes, procéder à des enquêtes et prendre des décisions
dans le cadre des articles 30.1 à 30.19;
c)
de connaître de tout appel pouvant y être interjeté en vertu de toute autre
loi fédérale ou de ses règlements et des questions connexes;
d)
d’exercer les attributions qui lui sont conférées en vertu de toute autre loi
fédérale ou de ses règlements.
|
The Federal
Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. F-7:
|
18.1(1)
An application for judicial review may be made by the Attorney General of
Canada or by anyone directly affected by the matter in respect of which
relief is sought.
(2) An
application for judicial review in respect of a decision or an order of a
federal board, commission or other tribunal shall be made within 30 days
after the time the decision or order was first communicated by the federal
board, commission or other tribunal to the office of the Deputy Attorney
General of Canada or to the party directly affected by it, or within any
further time that a judge of the Federal Court may fix or allow before or
after the end of those 30 days.
(3) On an
application for judicial review, the Federal Court may
(a) order a
federal board, commission or other tribunal to do any act or thing it has
unlawfully failed or refused to do or has unreasonably delayed in doing; or
(b) declare
invalid or unlawful, or quash, set aside or set aside and refer back for
determination in accordance with such directions as it considers to be
appropriate, prohibit or restrain, a decision, order, act or proceeding of a
federal board, commission or other tribunal.
(4) The
Federal Court may grant relief under subsection (3) if it is satisfied that
the federal board, commission or other tribunal
(a) acted
without jurisdiction, acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise
its jurisdiction;
(b) failed to
observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other
procedure that it was required by law to observe;
(c) erred in
law in making a decision or an order, whether or not the error appears on the
face of the record;
(d) based its
decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse
or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it;
(e) acted, or
failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or
(f) acted in
any other way that was contrary to law.
(5) If the
sole ground for relief established on an application for judicial review is a
defect in form or a technical irregularity, the Federal Court may
(a) refuse the
relief if it finds that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has
occurred; and
(b) in the
case of a defect in form or a technical irregularity in a decision or an
order, make an order validating the decision or order, to have effect from
any time and on any terms that it considers appropriate.
18.5 Despite sections 18 and 18.1, if an
Act of Parliament expressly provides for an appeal to the Federal Court, the
Federal Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court Martial
Appeal Court, the Tax Court of Canada, the Governor in Council or the
Treasury Board from a decision or an order of a federal board, commission or
other tribunal made by or in the course of proceedings before that board,
commission or tribunal, that decision or order is not, to the extent that it
may be so appealed, subject to review or to be restrained, prohibited,
removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with, except in accordance with that
Act.
28.(1) The
Federal Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine applications
for judicial review made in respect of any of the following federal boards,
commissions or other tribunals:
. . .
(e) the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal established by the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal Act;
(2) Sections
18 to 18.5, except subsection 18.4(2), apply, with any modifications that the
circumstances require, in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of
the Federal Court of Appeal under subsection (1) and, when they apply, a
reference to the Federal Court shall be read as a reference to the Federal
Court of Appeal.
(3) If the
Federal Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear and determine a matter, the
Federal Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any proceeding in respect of
that matter.
|
18.1(1)
Une demande de contrôle judiciaire peut être présentée par le procureur
général du Canada ou par quiconque est directement touché par l’objet de la
demande.
(2)
Les demandes de contrôle judiciaire sont à présenter dans les trente jours
qui suivent la première communication, par l'office fédéral, de sa décision
ou de son ordonnance au bureau du sous-procureur général du Canada ou à la
partie concernée, ou dans le délai supplémentaire qu'un juge de la Cour
fédérale peut, avant ou après l'expiration de ces trente jours, fixer ou
accorder.
(3)
Sur présentation d'une demande de contrôle judiciaire, la Cour fédérale peut:
a) ordonner à
l’office fédéral en cause d’accomplir tout acte qu’il a illégalement omis ou
refusé d’accomplir ou dont il a retardé l’exécution de manière déraisonnable;
b) déclarer
nul ou illégal, ou annuler, ou infirmer et renvoyer pour jugement
conformément aux instructions qu’elle estime appropriées, ou prohiber ou
encore restreindre toute décision, ordonnance, procédure ou tout autre acte
de l’office fédéral.
(4)
Les mesures prévues au paragraphe (3) sont prises si la Cour fédérale est
convaincue que l'office fédéral, selon le cas:
a) a agi sans
compétence, outrepassé celle-ci ou refusé de l’exercer;
b)
n’a pas observé un principe de justice naturelle ou d’équité procédurale ou
toute autre procédure qu’il était légalement tenu de respecter;
c) a rendu une
décision ou une ordonnance entachée d’une erreur de droit, que celle-ci soit
manifeste ou non au vu du dossier;
d) a rendu une
décision ou une ordonnance fondée sur une conclusion de fait erronée, tirée
de façon abusive ou arbitraire ou sans tenir compte des éléments dont il
dispose;
e)
a agi ou omis d’agir en raison d’une fraude ou de faux témoignages;
f) a agi de
toute autre façon contraire à la loi.
(5)
La Cour fédérale peut rejeter toute demande de contrôle judiciaire fondée
uniquement sur un vice de forme si elle estime qu'en l'occurrence le vice
n'entraîne aucun dommage important ni déni de justice et, le cas échéant,
valider la décision ou l'ordonnance entachée du vice et donner effet à
celle-ci selon les modalités de temps et autres qu'elle estime indiquées.
18.5
Par dérogation aux articles 18 et 18.1, lorsqu'une loi fédérale prévoit expressément
qu'il peut être interjeté appel, devant la Cour fédérale, la Cour d'appel
fédérale, la Cour suprême du Canada, la Cour d'appel de la cour martiale, la
Cour canadienne de l'impôt, le gouverneur en conseil ou le Conseil du Trésor,
d'une décision ou d'une ordonnance d'un office fédéral, rendue à tout stade
des procédures, cette décision ou cette ordonnance ne peut, dans la mesure où
elle est susceptible d'un tel appel, faire l'objet de contrôle, de
restriction, de prohibition, d'évocation, d'annulation ni d'aucune autre
intervention, sauf en conformité avec cette loi.
28.(1) La Cour d'appel fédérale
a compétence pour connaître des demandes de contrôle judiciaire visant les
offices fédéraux suivants:
. .
.
e)
le Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur constitué par la Loi sur le
Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur;
(2)
Les articles 18 à 18.5
s'appliquent, exception faite du paragraphe 18.4(2) et compte tenu des
adaptations de circonstance, à la Cour d'appel fédérale comme si elle y était
mentionnée lorsqu'elle est saisie en vertu du paragraphe (1) d'une demande de
contrôle judiciaire.
(3)
La Cour fédérale ne peut être saisie des questions qui relèvent de la Cour
d'appel fédérale.
|
Email this Content