Date: 20061025
Docket: T-1605-06
Citation: 2006 FC 1263
Ottawa, Ontario, October 25, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
1099065 ONTARIO INC.
(carrying on business as Outer
Space Sports)
Applicant
and
CANADA (MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS)
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1]
The
Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness seeks to have the
application for judicial review brought by 1099065 Ontario Inc. (carrying on
business as Outer Space Sports) (“OSS”) summarily dismissed as being beyond the
jurisdiction of the Federal Court. In the alternative, the Minister asks that
the Court exercise its discretion and decline to hear the application, as OSS has an adequate alternate remedy available
to it under the provisions of the Customs Act.
[2]
In the
further alternative, in the event that the Minister’s motion is dismissed, the
Minister seeks an extension of time for the Canada Border Services Agency to
provide the tribunal record.
[3]
For the
reasons that follow, I am of the view that this Court does not have
jurisdiction to consider OSS’ application for judicial
review, in light of the comprehensive statutory review scheme established under
the Customs Act. As a consequence, the Notice of Application for
judicial review will be struck out.
Background
[4]
These
proceedings have their genesis in a verification audit carried out by the
Canada Customs and Revenue Agency in relation to OSS’s importing activities in 2000, when OSS was operating as a designer, importer
and distributor of motorcycle apparel.
[5]
It appears
from the record that based upon the results of this audit, a re-determination
was made by a CCRA officer in February of 2002, pursuant to the provisions of
section 59 of the Customs Act. This re-determination related to the
value for duty of goods imported into Canada by OSS.
[6]
At some
point in the process, the responsibilities for customs activities were
reassigned from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to the Canada Border
Services Agency. As nothing turns on which organization was responsible for
this file at any given time, the two organizations will be referred to
collectively as “the Agency”.
[7]
Not being
satisfied with the Agency’s decision, OSS
then sought a further re-determination by the President of the Agency, in
accordance with the provisions of section 60 of the Customs Act. The
further re-determination process is ongoing.
[8]
On
September 6, 2006, OSS commenced its application in
the Federal Court. The Notice of Application describes the application as
… an application for judicial review of
the Canadian Border Services Agency decision dated August 16, 2006 issued in
the further re-determination proceedings under subsection 60(1) of the Customs
Act, R.S. 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.), and subsequent to the Canada Customs and
Revenue Agency decision dated February 4, 2002 and Detailed Adjustment
Statements dated February 7, 2002 issued in the re-determination proceedings
under subsection 59(1) of the Customs Act.
[9]
Amongst
other things, OSS seeks a writ of mandamus
compelling the Agency to set aside the re-determination decision made pursuant
to the provisions of section 59 of the Customs Act.
[10]
A copy of
what I understand to be the Agency’s August 16, 2006 “decision” is contained in
the record. This is an e-mail from an Agency officer to counsel for OSS proposing dates for a meeting. The
purpose of the meeting is described as being to “review CV sample 65 and match
it to the documentation provided with your submission and your latest response.”
The officer continues by saying that she “would like to continue with other CV
samples as well if time permits”. She goes on to state that “[t]he intent will
be to accurately determine the Customs value which will depend on the proper
characterization of the role and status of each of the parties to the
transaction.”
[11]
After
proposing a range of potential dates for the meeting, the officer closes by
stating “Please look at your schedule and let me know your preference. I will
make any necessary arrangements from this end after the date is agreed.”
[12]
Counsel
for OSS responded by acknowledging
receipt of the e-mail, and indicating that he was seeking instructions from his
client. The next development in this matter was the issuance of OSS’s Notice of Application for judicial
review.
Legislative Regime
[13]
In order
to address the Minister’s motion, it is necessary to have an understanding of
the legislative scheme established for the review of decisions relating to the
calculation of duty made pursuant to sections 59 and 60 of the Customs Act.
Given that these sections are lengthy, a copy of the relevant provisions is
attached as an appendix to these reasons.
[14]
Briefly
stated, however, these sections provide for two layers of internal review
within the Agency, in accordance with section 59 and 60 of the Act. Section
67(1) of the Act then provides a full right of appeal from Agency decisions to
the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. Section 68(1) of the Customs Act
provides for a further right of appeal from decisions of the CITT to the
Federal Court of Appeal on any question of law.
[15]
Also
worthy of note is subsection 58(3) of the Act, which provides that initial
determinations or deemed determinations made by an Agency officer are “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”.
[16]
In a
similar vein, subsection 59(6) of the Act provides that neither an initial
re-determination nor a further re-determination is “subject to be restrained,
prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with, except to the extent
and in the manner provided by section 59(1) and sections 60 and 61”.
[17]
Finally,
section 62 of the Act provides that no re-determination or further
re-determination made by the President of the Agency is “subject to be
restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with, except to
the extent and in the manner provided by section 67”. Section 67 is the
section that provides the right of appeal to the CITT.
Analysis
[18]
As a
preliminary matter, it should be noted that there was some suggestion in OSS’s
memorandum of fact and law that the Minister’s motion should be adjourned until
after the tribunal record had been produced by the Agency, as it would be
unfair to require OSS to respond to the Minister’s motion without first having
access to the relevant documentation.
[19]
When
counsel for OSS was asked to clarify his
position on this point at the commencement of the hearing, he advised the Court
that he did not wish to see the matter delayed, and that he was content to
proceed on the basis of the record that was before the Court. The hearing then
proceeded on this basis.
[20]
Before
addressing the issues identified by the parties, I would further observe that
there seems to me to be a real question as to whether there is a “decision”,
“order” or “matter” in this case, as those terms are used in section 18.1 of
the Federal Courts Act, that is susceptible to judicial review, even
taking into account the broad interpretation of these concepts advocated in
cases such as Markevich v. Canada, [1999] F.C.J. No. 250, 3 F.C. 28.
[21]
That is, I
have trouble understanding how a letter proposing a meeting and suggesting
dates would qualify as the sort of administrative action that is subject to the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
[22]
That said,
although this issue was alluded to in the submissions of counsel for the
Minister, the motion was not argued on this basis, and I will proceed on the
assumption that there has indeed been a “decision” made by the Agency.
[23]
The test
to be used in a motion such as this was established by the Federal Court of
Appeal in David Bull Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc.
(C.A.), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1629, 1 F.C. 588. There the Court said that in order
for a Notice of Application to be disposed of in a summary fashion, it must be
“so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success.” The Court
further noted that “Such cases must be very exceptional and cannot include
cases ... where there is simply a debatable issue as to the adequacy of the
allegations in the notice of motion.”
[24]
Applications
for judicial review are intended to be summary proceedings, and applications to
strike add greatly to the cost and time required to deal with such matters. As
a result, the Federal Court of Appeal determined in David Bull that
unless a moving party can meet this very stringent standard, the “direct and
proper way to contest an originating notice of motion which the respondent
thinks to be without merit is to appear and argue at the hearing of the motion
itself.” (See also Addison & Leyen Ltd. v. Canada, [2006] F.C.J. No. 489, 2006
FCA 107, at ¶ 5).
Ouster of Jurisdiction
[25]
It appears
that the essential nature of the underlying dispute in this case arises under
the valuation provisions of the Customs Act, with respect to a
determination of the value for duty of goods imported into Canada by OSS.
[26]
The first
question, then, is whether this Court has jurisdiction to consider OSS’ application for judicial review, in
light of the comprehensive statutory review scheme established under the Customs
Act.
[27]
A similar
question confronted Justice Lemieux in Abbott Laboratories, Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National
Revenue) [2004]
F.C.J. No. 410, 2004 FC 140. Abbott involved decisions made by the
Agency with respect to the originating status of goods brought into Canada. After an initial finding
that the goods in question were not entitled to receive preferential treatment,
as they did not meet the Rules of Origin requirements established under the North
American Free Trade Agreement, Abbott sought a re-determination under
subsection 59(1) of the Customs Act.
[28]
When it
was not successful on the initial re-determination, Abbott then sought a
further re-determination in accordance with the provisions of section 60 of the
Customs Act. At the same time, Abbott commenced an application for
judicial review in this Court.
[29]
Before
Justice Lemieux, the Minister took the position that judicial review of the
section 59 re-determination decision was precluded by section 18.5 of the Federal
Courts Act, and by virtue of the fact that the Customs Act provided
a comprehensive procedure for challenging decisions of this nature.
[30]
Justice
Lemieux found that section 18.5 of the Federal Courts Act had no
application to the case before him. He was, however, satisfied that this Court
did not have jurisdiction to consider Abbott’s application for judicial review,
in light of the comprehensive statutory review scheme provided for under the Customs
Act.
[31]
In coming
to this conclusion, Justice Lemieux stated:
¶ 38 … This case may be unique by
the presence of three privative clauses in the review structure provided by
sections 59 through 68 of the Act. Under those provisions, Ross Le Clair's
decisions may be reviewed only through the process of further redetermination
by the Commissioner [now the President]. The Commissioner's redetermination is
to be set aside or otherwise dealt with only by the CITT and the CITT's
decision may be appealed only on a question of law to the Federal Court of
Appeal.
¶ 39 I cannot think how
Parliament's intention, by enacting this structure, could have been expressed
in clearer terms. Parliament wanted the administrative, quasi-judicial and
judicial review system to be followed to the exclusion of any other paths of
review or appeal. This structure includes bodies with recognized expertise
in the subject matter with the Commissioner and the CITT. Moreover, it is the Federal
Court of Appeal and not the Federal Court which supervises the CITT in judicial
review matters pursuant to paragraph 28(1)(b) of the Federal Court Act.
¶ 40 As I see it, Parliament's clear
intention ousts judicial review by the Federal Court under section 18.1 of the Federal
Court Act and this intention also removes the necessity for this Court to
test whether the prescribed review route provides for an adequate alternative
remedy.
¶ 41 I consider this case to be one
of those referred to in Brown and Evans, Review of Administrative Action
at paragraph 3.6 where it is said the statutory structure may be expressed in
such a way that it is exclusive and any discretion to consider the adequacy of
that alternative remedy has been removed by statute. (See, Pringle v. Fraser,
[1972] S.C.R. 821. See also Chief Justice Dickson's remarks at pages 82 to 92
in Canada (Auditor General) v. Canada (Minister, Energy, Mines and
Resources) et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 49). [emphasis added]
[32]
Counsel
for OSS initially suggested that
Justice Lemieux’s comments quoted above were mere obiter. I do not
agree. The paragraphs quoted above are quite clearly the crux of Justice
Lemieux’s decision.
[33]
When
pressed repeatedly to explain how the Abbott decision could be distinguished
from the circumstances of this case, counsel for OSS suggested that the facts
in that case were materially different from those in the present case, as
Abbott was attempting to proceed simultaneously along two parallel tracks –
namely the Customs Act review process and judicial review in the Federal
Court.
[34]
When it
was pointed out that this is exactly what OSS seems to be trying to do in this case,
counsel then alluded to “complex administrative law issues” raised by this
case, including bias concerns on the part of his client. No explanation of
what these issues were was provided by counsel.
[35]
When
pressed further on this point, counsel for OSS conceded that all of the issues that his
client wished to have determined in this case could be addressed through the
review process established under the Customs Act. While counsel
indicated that there may be some question as to the ability of customs officers
to deal with the Charter issues that are allegedly raised by the case,
counsel conceded that these issues could ultimately be dealt with by the CITT
and the Federal Court of Appeal.
[36]
At the end
of the day, it seems that the fundamental basis for OSS’ unwillingness to avail itself of the Customs
Act review process is its reluctance to go through the various levels of
review provided for in the legislation, and its desire to have its issues
adjudicated now by the Federal Court.
[37]
With
respect, a party’s preference as to forum is not sufficient to override the
clearly expressed will of Parliament that cases of this nature be determined
elsewhere.
[38]
As a
consequence, I am satisfied that the effect of the comprehensive statutory
review scheme provided for under the Customs Act is to deprive this
Court of jurisdiction to consider Abbott’s application for judicial review.
Adequate Alternate Remedy
[39]
In the
event that I am mistaken in finding that the jurisdiction of the Court has been
ousted by the review provisions of the Customs Act, I am also satisfied
that the review scheme established in section 58 to 68 of that Act provide OSS
with an adequate alternate remedy, such that this Court ought to decline to
entertain this application for judicial review.
[40]
In this
regard, I note that in Abbott, Justice Lemieux found that while the
appeal route prescribed under the Customs Act might be inconvenient
because of the numerous levels of possible appeals, this did not mean that it
did not provide an adequate alternate remedy.
[41]
Moreover,
Justice Lemieux also found that the fact that there might be myriad factual and
legal questions involved in a case, perhaps necessitating the assistance of
experts, also did not mean that the Customs Act process did not provide
an adequate alternate remedy.
[42]
Finally,
it bears repeating counsel for OSS’ concession that all of the relief
that his client is seeking by way of its application for judicial review is
available to it through the Customs Act review process.
[43]
As a
consequence, in the event that this Court does have jurisdiction to entertain
OSS’ application for judicial review, I would decline to exercise that
jurisdiction on the basis that an adequate alternate remedy is available to OSS under the review provisions of the Customs
Act.
Conclusion
[44]
For these
reasons, an order will go striking OSS’
Notice of Application for Judicial Review, without leave to amend. The
Minister shall have his costs of the motion, which I fix at $1,000.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the
Minister’s motion is allowed and OSS’
Notice of Application for Judicial Review is struck, without leave to amend.
The Minister shall have costs fixed in the amount of $1,000.
“Anne
Mactavish”
APPENDIX
|
Determination,
Re-determination and Further Re-determination of Origin, Tariff
Classification and Value for Duty of Imported Goods
[…]
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.
|
Détermination
de l’origine, du classement tarifaire et de la valeur en douane des
marchandises importées, révision et réexamen
[…]
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) 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.
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Re-determination
and Further Re-determination by President
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.
60.1
(1) If no request is made under section 60 within the time set out in that
section, a person may make an application to the President for an extension
of the time within which the request may be made, and the President may
extend the time for making the request.
(2)
The application must set out the reasons why the request was not made on
time.
(3)
The application must be made to the President in the prescribed manner and
form and contain the prescribed information.
(4)
On receipt of an application, the President must, without delay, consider it
and notify the person making the application, in writing, of the President’s
decision.
(5)
If the President grants the application, the request is valid as of the date
of the President’s decision.
(6)
No application may be granted unless
(a)
the application is made within one year after the expiry of the time set out
in section 60; and
(b)
the person making the application demonstrates that
(i)
within the time set out in section 60, the person was unable to act or to
give a mandate to act in the person’s name or the person had a bona fide
intention to make a request,
(ii)
it would be just and equitable to grant the application, and
(iii)
the application was made as soon as circumstances permitted.
60.2
(1) A person who has made an application under section 60.1 may apply to the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal to have the application granted after
either
(a)
the President has refused the application; or
(b)
ninety days have elapsed after the application was made and the President has
not notified the person of the President’s decision.
If
paragraph (a) applies, the application under this subsection must be made
within ninety days after the application is refused.
(2)
The application must be made by filing with the President and the Secretary
of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal a copy of the application
referred to in section 60.1 and, if notice has been given under subsection
60.1(4), a copy of the notice.
(3)
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal may dispose of an application by
dismissing or granting it and, in granting an application, it may impose any
terms that it considers just or order that the request be deemed to be a
valid request as of the date of the order.
(4)
No application may be granted under this section unless
(a)
the application under subsection 60.1(1) was made within one year after the
expiry of the time set out in section 60; and
(b)
the person making the application demonstrates that
(i)
within the time set out in section 60, the person was unable to act or to
give a mandate to act in the person’s name or the person had a bona fide
intention to make a request,
(ii)
it would be just and equitable to grant the application, and
(iii)
the application was made as soon as circumstances permitted.
|
Révision ou réexamen par le
président
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.
60.1 (1) La personne qui n’a pas présenté
la demande visée à l’article 60 dans le délai qui y est prévu peut demander
au président une prorogation du délai, le président étant autorisé à faire
droit à la demande.
(2) La demande de prorogation énonce
les raisons pour lesquelles la demande de révision ou de réexamen
n’a pas été présentée dans le délai
prévu.
(3) La demande de prorogation est
envoyée au président selon les modalités réglementaires et avec les
renseignements réglementaires.
(4) Sur réception de la demande de
prorogation, le président l’examine sans délai et avise par écrit la personne
de sa décision.
(5) Si le président fait droit à la
demande de prorogation, la demande de révision ou de réexamen est réputée
valide à compter de la date de la décision.
(6) Il n’est fait droit à la demande de
prorogation que si les conditions suivantes sont réunies :
a)
la demande est présentée dans l’année suivant l’expiration du délai prévu à
l’article 60;
b) l’auteur de la demande établit ce
qui suit :
(i) au cours du délai prévu à l’article
60, il n’a pu ni agir ni mandater quelqu’un pour agir en son nom, ou il avait
véritablement l’intention de présenter une demande de révision ou de
réexamen,
(ii) il serait juste et équitable de
faire droit à la demande de prorogation,
(iii) la demande a été présentée dès
que possible.
60.2 (1) La personne qui a présenté une
demande de prorogation en vertu de l’article 60.1 peut demander au Tribunal
canadien du commerce extérieur d’y faire droit :
a)
soit après le rejet de la demande par le président;
b)
soit à l’expiration d’un délai de quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la
présentation de la demande, si le président ne l’a pas avisée de sa décision.
La
demande fondée sur l’alinéa a) est présentée dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours
suivant le rejet de la demande.
(2)
La demande se fait par dépôt, auprès du président et du secrétaire du
Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur, d’une copie de la demande de
prorogation visée à l’article 60.1 et, si un avis a été donné en application
du paragraphe 60.1(4), d’une copie de l’avis.
(3)
Le Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur peut rejeter la demande ou y faire
droit. Dans ce dernier cas, il peut imposer les conditions qu’il estime
justes ou ordonner que la demande de révision ou de réexamen soit réputée
valide à compter de la date de l’ordonnance.
(4) Il n’est fait droit à la demande
que si les conditions suivantes sont réunies :
a)
la demande de prorogation visée au paragraphe 60.1(1) a été présentée dans
l’année suivant l’expiration du délai prévu à l’article 60;
b)
l’auteur de la demande établit ce qui suit :
(i) au cours du délai prévu à l’article
60, il n’a pu ni agir ni mandater quelqu’un pour agir en son nom, ou il avait
véritablement l’intention de présenter une demande de révision ou de
réexamen,
(ii) il serait juste et équitable de
faire droit à la demande,
(iii) la demande a été présentée dès
que possible.
|
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
62.
A re-determination or further re-determination under section 60 or 61 is
not subject to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise
dealt with except to the extent and in the manner provided by section 67.
[…]
|
62. La
révision ou le réexamen prévu aux articles 60 ou 61 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 à l’article
67.
[…]
|
|
65.
(1) If a re-determination or further re-determination is made under paragraph
60(4)(a) or 61(1)(a) or (c) in respect of goods, such persons who are given
notice of the decision as may be prescribed shall, in accordance with the
decision,
(a) pay any additional amount
owing as duties in respect of the goods or, where an appeal is taken under
section 67, 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 and interest paid (other than interest that was paid by reason of
duties not being paid in accordance with subsection 32(5) or section 33) in
excess of the duties and interest owing in respect of the goods.
(2) Any amount owing by or to a
person under subsection (1) or 66(3) of this Act or as a result of a
determination or re-determination under the Special Import Measures Act in
respect of goods, other than an amount in respect of which security is given,
is payable immediately, whether or not an appeal is taken under section 67 of
this Act or subsection 61(1) of that Act.
|
65. (1) Les personnes visées par
règlement qui sont avisées de la décision — révision ou réexamen prévu aux
alinéas 60(4)a) ou 61(1)a) ou c) — doivent, selon les termes de la décision :
a) soit verser
tout complément de droits dû sur les marchandises ou, si appel a été
interjeté en vertu de l’article 67, payer cette somme ou donner la garantie,
jugée satisfaisante par le ministre, du versement de ce complément et des
intérêts échus ou à échoir sur ce complément;
b) soit
recevoir le remboursement 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.
(2) Les sommes
qu’une personne doit ou qui lui sont dues en application des paragraphes (1)
ou 66(3) ou suite à une décision, une révision ou un réexamen faits en vertu
de la Loi sur les mesures spéciales d’importation sur des marchandises, à
l’exception des sommes pour lesquelles une garantie a été donnée, sont à
payer immédiatement, même si appel a été interjeté en vertu de l’article 67
de la présente loi ou du paragraphe 61(1) de cette loi.
|
|
65.1 (1) If a person (in
this subsection referred to as the “applicant”) to whom notice of a decision
under subsection 59(1) or paragraph 60(4)(a) or 61(1)(a) or (c) was given
would be entitled under paragraph 59(3)(b) or 65(1)(b) to a refund of an
amount if the applicant had been the person who paid the amount, the amount
may be paid to the applicant and any amount so paid to the applicant is
deemed to have been refunded to the applicant under that paragraph.
(2) If an amount in respect of
goods has been refunded to a person under paragraph 59(3)(b) or 65(1)(b), no
other person is entitled to a refund of an amount in respect of the goods
under either of those paragraphs.
(3) This section does not apply
to a marking determination.
|
65.1 (1) Peut être versé au destinataire d’un avis de décision prévu
au paragraphe 59(1) ou aux alinéas 60(4)a) ou 61(1)a) ou c) le montant dont
il aurait eu le droit de recevoir le remboursement en vertu des alinéas
59(3)b) ou 65(1)b) s’il avait versé pareil montant. Le cas échéant, le
montant est réputé avoir été remboursé au destinataire en application de l’un
ou l’autre de ces derniers alinéas.
(2) Les
marchandises au titre desquelles un montant a été remboursé en application
des alinéas 59(3)b) ou 65(1)b) ne peuvent faire l’objet d’un autre
remboursement en vertu de l’un ou l’autre de ces alinéas.
(3) Le présent
article ne s’applique pas aux décisions qui portent sur la conformité des
marques.
|
|
66. (1) If the amount
paid by a person on account of duties expected to be owing under paragraph
59(3)(a) or 65(1)(a) of this Act or under the Special Import Measures Act
exceeds the amount of duties, if any, owing as a result of a determination,
re-determination or further re-determination, the person shall be paid, in
addition to the excess amount, interest at the prescribed rate for the period
beginning on the first day after the day the amount was paid and ending on
the day the determination, re-determination or further re-determination, as
the case may be, was made, calculated on the excess amount.
(2) If, as a result of a
determination, re-determination or further re-determination made in respect
of goods, a person is required under paragraph 59(3)(a) or 65(1)(a) to pay an
amount owing as duties in respect of the goods and the person gives security
under that paragraph pending a subsequent re-determination or further
re-determination in respect of the goods, the interest payable under
subsection 33.4(1) on any amount owing as a result of the subsequent
re-determination or further re-determination is to be computed at the
prescribed rate for the period beginning on the first day after the day the
security was given and ending on the day the subsequent re-determination or
further re-determination is made.
(3) A person who is given a
refund under paragraph 59(3)(b) or 65(1)(b) of this Act or under the Special
Import Measures Act of an amount paid shall be given, in addition to the
refund, interest at the prescribed rate for the period beginning on the first
day after the day the amount was paid and ending on the day the refund is
given, calculated on the amount of the refund.
|
66. (1) La personne qui verse, au titre des droits qu’elle s’attend à
devoir payer en application des alinéas 59(3)a) ou 65(1)a) de la présente loi
ou en application de la Loi sur les mesures spéciales d’importation, une
somme qui excède les droits dus par suite d’une intervention — détermination,
révision ou réexamen — reçoit, en plus de l’excédent, des intérêts au taux
réglementaire, calculés sur l’excédent pour la période commençant le
lendemain du versement de la somme et se terminant le jour de l’intervention.
(2) Lorsqu’une
intervention — détermination, révision ou réexamen — donne lieu à
l’obligation d’effectuer les versements prévus aux alinéas 59(3)a) ou 65(1)a)
et qu’une garantie est donnée en application de ces alinéas en attendant une
révision ou un réexamen ultérieur, les intérêts payables en application du
paragraphe 33.4(1) sur un montant dû par suite de cette révision ou de ce
réexamen ultérieur sont calculés au taux réglementaire pour la période
commençant le lendemain du jour où la garantie est donnée et se terminant le
jour de la révision ou du réexamen ultérieur.
(3) Quiconque
reçoit un remboursement en vertu des alinéas 59(3)b) ou 65(1)b) de la
présente loi ou en vertu de la Loi sur les mesures spéciales d’importation
reçoit, en plus du remboursement, des intérêts au taux réglementaire,
calculés sur les excédents pour la période commençant le lendemain du
versement des excédents et se terminant le jour de leur remboursement.
|
|
Appeals
and References
|
Appels et recours
|
|
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.
|
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.
|
|
67.1 (1) If no notice of
appeal has been filed within the time set out in section 67, a person may
make an application to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal for an order
extending the time within which a notice of appeal may be filed, and the
Tribunal may make an order extending the time for appealing and may impose
any terms that it considers just.
(2) The application must set
out the reasons why the notice of appeal was not filed on time.
(3) The application must be
made by filing with the President and the Secretary of the Canadian
International Trade Tribunal the application accompanied by the notice of
appeal.
(4) No order may be made under
this section unless
(a) the application is made
within one year after the expiry of the time set out in section 67; and
(b) the person making the
application demonstrates that
(i) within the time set out in
section 67 for appealing, the person was unable to act or to give a mandate
to act in the person’s name or the person had a bona fide intention to
appeal,
(ii) it would be just and
equitable to grant the application,
(iii) the application was made
as soon as circumstances permitted, and
(iv) there are reasonable
grounds for the appeal.
|
67.1 (1) La personne qui n’a pas interjeté appel dans le délai prévu à
l’article 67 peut présenter au Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur une
demande de prorogation du délai pour interjeter appel. Le tribunal peut faire
droit à la demande et imposer les conditions qu’il estime justes.
(2) La demande
de prorogation énonce les raisons pour lesquelles l’avis d’appel n’a pas été
déposé dans le délai prévu.
(3) La demande
de prorogation se fait par dépôt, auprès du président et du secrétaire du
Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur, de la demande et de l’avis d’appel.
(4) Il n’est
fait droit à la demande de prorogation que si les conditions suivantes sont
réunies :
a) la demande
est présentée dans l’année suivant l’expiration du délai d’appel prévu à
l’article 67;
b) l’auteur de
la demande établit ce qui suit :
(i) au cours
du délai d’appel prévu à l’article 67, il n’a pu ni agir ni mandater
quelqu’un pour agir en son nom, ou il avait véritablement l’intention
d’interjeter appel,
(ii) il serait
juste et équitable de faire droit à la demande,
(iii) la
demande a été présentée dès que possible,
(iv) l’appel
est fondé sur des motifs raisonnables.
|
|
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.
|
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.
|
Email this Content