Denault
J.A.:
We
are
all
of
the
opinion
that
the
Tribunal
did
not
commit
any
error
which
would
justify
the
intervention
of
this
Court.
In
the
instant
case,
it
was
not
unreasonable
for
the
Tribunal
to
conclude
that
the
concept
of
impregnation,
having
regard
to
the
evidence
and
when
analysed
in
light
of
Note
I)
A)
of
the
Explanatory
Notes
to
the
Harmonized
Commodity
Description
and
Coding
System,
did
not
make
the
goods
in
issue
impregnated
goods
within
the
meaning
of
Note
2
of
Chapter
48
of
Schedule
I
to
the
Customs
Tariff.
Accordingly,
it
was
not
unreasonable
to
assign
the
goods
in
issue
(shoeboard)
to
position
48.05,
and
more
specifically
to
tariff
number
48.05.80.10,
rather
than
position
48.11.
The
appeal
will
be
dismissed.
Appeal
dismissed.
Email this Content