NC Cameron & Sons Ltd. v. Canada (Commissioner of Customs and Revenue), 2002 FCA 202

Date: 20020516

Docket: A-341-00

Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 202

CORAM:        STONE J.A.

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

SEXTON J.A.

BETWEEN:

                   N.C. CAMERON & SONS LTD.             

Appellant

- and -

COMMISSIONER OF CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE

(FORMERLY THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE)

Respondent

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on Tuesday, May 14, 2002.

Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario, on Thursday, May 16 , 2002.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                                                                       STONE J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                                                                                                ROTHSTEIN J.A.

            SEXTON J.A.

Date: 20020516

Docket: A-341-00

Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 202

CORAM:        STONE J.A.

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

SEXTON J.A.

BETWEEN:

                   N.C. CAMERON & SONS LTD.                

Appellant

- and -

COMMISSIONER OF CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE

(FORMERLY THE DEPUTY MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE)

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

STONE J.A.

[1]                 This is an appeal from a decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal dated February 11, 2000, dismissing the appellant's appeal from decisions of the Deputy Minister of National Revenue with respect to the classification under the Customs Tariff, R.S.C. 1985 (3^rd Supp.) c. 41 of figurines, ornaments, picture frames and bookends.

[2]                 The first issue before the Tribunal was whether the goods in issue were properly classified under tariff item No. 39.26.40.10 of Schedule I as statuettes of plastics, under tariff item No. 39.26.40.90 as other ornamental articles of plastics and under tariff item No. 39.24.90.00 as other household articles and toilet articles of plastics, or should be classified under tariff item No. 68.10.99.00 as other articles of artificial stone. The second issue was whether certain figurines and ornaments were properly classified under tariff item No. 39.26.40.10 as statuettes of plastics and under tariff item No. 39.26.40.90 as other ornamental articles of plastics, or should be classified under tariff item No. 95.05.10.00 as articles for Christmas festivities and under tariff item No. 95.05.90.90 as other festive articles. A final issue was whether some of the goods qualified for the benefit of Code 2950 of Schedule II to the Customs Tariff on the basis that they are "crosses".

[3]                 The parties are agreed that the decision of the Tribunal should be reviewed by this Court on the standard of reasonableness simpliciter in accordance with this Court's decisions in Continuous Colour Coat Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) (2000), 257 N.R. 82 and Minister of National Revenue v. Yves Ponroy Canada (2000), 259 N.R. 38, at paragraphs 36 and 37. An unreasonable decision is "one that, in the main, is not supported by any reasons that can stand up to a somewhat probing examination": Canada (Director of Investigation and Research) v. Southam Inc.[1997] 1 S.C.R. 748, per Iacobucci J. at 776.

[4]                 I am of the view that the decision of the Tribunal was reasonably based on the evidence and the relevant law contained in the Customs Tariff. Central to the decision of the Tribunal to classify the goods under tariff item Nos. 39.26.40.10, 39.26.90.00 and 39.24.90.00 rather than under tariff item No. 68.10.99.00, was its findings, based upon the evidence, that the goods were made of a combination of unsaturated polyester resin (polymer) and calcium carbonate (powdered limestone), that the plastic component was more than merely a binder and that the use of this component "gives the compound it plasticity and allows it to flow into the finest details of the mould to provide the detailed shape and texture required in the product." I am unable to detect any error in these findings of fact. Applying Rule 3(b) of the General Rules, the Tribunal decided that the goods were properly classified by the Deputy Minister under tariff items 39.24 and 39.26. Nor am I persuaded that the Tribunal decided unreasonably in upholding the Deputy Minister's refusal to classify some of the goods as festive articles or as articles for Christmas festivities, or as "crosses". There was evidence before the Tribunal on which it could reasonably conclude that these goods were "first and foremost collectibles" rather than festive articles. It was then not an unreasonable step to classify them under the tariff item Nos. 39.26.40.10, 39.26.90.00 and 39.24.90.00 relying on its previous reasoning. Here again, the Tribunal appears to have properly based that decision on the evidence before it. I can find no error such as would justify this Court's intervention in that conclusion.

[5]                 I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.

        "A. J. Stone"

                                                                                                                                                                  J.A.                          

"I agree

Marshall Rothstein"

"I agree

J. E. Sexton"