Date: 19990423
Docket: A-123-98
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
SPALDING CANADA INC.,
Appellant
AND:
THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent
Heard at Montreal, Quebec, Friday, April 23, 1999
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montreal, Quebec, Friday, April 23, 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Date: 19990423
Docket: A-123-98
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
SPALDING CANADA INC.,
Appellant
AND:
THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE,
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Montreal, Quebec
on Friday, April 23, 1999)
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
[1] Despite the very able submissions made by Mr. Kirby for the appellant, we have not been persuaded that the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (Tribunal) committed any reviewable error in interpreting the word "priming" as applied to unfinished golf balls prior to their labelling and lacquering in Canada.
[2] As this Court said in Schrader Automotive Inc. and the Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise1, the Tribunal is a specialized tribunal entitled to considerable deference with respect to matters falling within its domain of expertise. Décary J.A. wrote for the Court:
| The Canadian International Trade Tribunal is, clearly, a specialized tribunal. It is even more so when the decision at issue is with respect to the Customs Tariff Act. That Act is a statutory enactment and its interpretation thereby becomes a question of law, hence the right to appeal tariff decisions to this Court on a question of law. Yet, the Customs Tariff, law as it may be, is nonetheless a law of a very technical nature. It is legislation of such a specialized nature and expressed in terms that have so little to do with traditional legislation that for all practical purposes the Court is being asked to give legal meaning to technical words that are well beyond its customary mandate. Furthermore, there are unique Canadian and international rules of interpretation applicable to the Customs Tariff that bear little resemblance to the traditional canons of statutory construction. Therefore, considerable deference should be accorded to the Tribunal's decisions and litigants who appeal tariff decisions to this Court should be aware that they have a tough hill to climb. |
|
[3] Applying the test followed by this Court in the Schrader case, we cannot say that the Tribunal has come to an unreasonable conclusion as regards the meaning of "priming" for the purposes of Code 6472 of the schedule to the Customs Duties Reduction or Removal Order, 1988, No. 1. Consequently, the appeal will be dismissed with costs.
"Gilles Létourneau"
J.A.
__________________
1 A-675-97, March 10, 1999.
Email this Content