We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2016
The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (Harmonized System) has been adopted by the major trading nations of the world, including Canada. Decisions of the European Court of Justice are influential for interpretation of the Harmonized System. According to these decisions, goods should be classified under the Harmonized System on the basis of their physical characteristics, while factors that relate to use after importation should be considered only if they are reflected in the physical characteristics. The author rejects this narrow approach and argues that interpretation will be successful only if it is done in light of the full commercial context, including use after importation, advertising, distribution, and market indicators such as price. The article reviews Canadian case law since implementation of the Harmonized System in 1988 as well as some decisions interpreting the pre-1988 Canadian nomenclature, which contained many tariff items that depended on the end use of goods after importation.
1 Customs Tariff, R.S.C. 1985 (3d Supp.), c. 41, rep. and sub. Customs Tariff, S.C. 1997, c. 36. For the pre-Harmonized System (HS) legislation and tariff schedule, see Customs Tariff, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-54.
2 International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, Brussels, 14 June 1983, Can. T.S. 1988 No. 38 (in force 1 January 1988).
3 Staatssecretaris van Financiën v. Kamino International Logistics BV, Case C-376/07, 19 February 2009, at para. 31. See Kip Europe SA, Hewlett Packard International SARL v. Administration des douanes, Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects, Cases C-362/07 and C-363/07, 11 December 2008; JVC France SAS v. Administration des douanes—Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières, Case C-312/07, [2008] E.C.R. I-4165; Codirex Expeditie BV v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Case C-400/06, [2007] E.C.R. I-7399; F.T.S. International BV v. Belastingdienst —Douane West, Case C-310/06, [2007] E.C.R. I-6749; Turbon International GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz, Case C-250/05 , [2006] E.C.R. I-10531; Sachsenmilch AG v. Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, Case C-196/05, [2006] E.C.R. I-5161; Possehl Erzkontor GmbHv. HauptzollamtDuisberg, Case C-445/04, [2005] E.C.R. I-10721; Ikegami Electronics (Europe) GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, Case C-467/03, [2005] E.C.R. I-2389; Skatteministeriet v. Imexpo Trading A/S, Case C-379/02, [2004] E.C.R. I-9273; Lohmann GmbH & Co. KG v. Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz, Cases C-260 to C-263/00, [2002] E.C.R. I-10045; Biochem Zusatzstoffe Handels- und Produktions GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, Case C-259/00, [2002] E.C.R. I-2461; Turbon International GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz, Case C-276/00, [2002] E.C.R. I-1389; CBA Computer Handels- und Beteiligungs GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Aachen, Case C-479/99, [2001] E.C.R. I-4391; Vau De Sport GmbH & Co. KG v. Oberfinanzdirektion Koblenz, Case C-288/99, [2001] E.C.R. I-3683; Peacock AG v. Hauptzollamt Paderborn, Case C-339/ 98, [2000] E.C.R. I-8947; Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Ld. v. Tribunal Técnico Aduaneiro de Segunda Instância, Case C-42/99, [2000] E.C.R. I-7691; Mövenpick Deutschland GmbH für das Gastgewerbe v. Hauptzollamt Bremen, Case C-405/97, [1999] E.C.R. I-2397; ROSEElektrotechnic GmbH & Co. KG v. Oberfinanzdirektion Köln, Case C-280/97, [1999] E.C.R. I-689; Glob-Sped AG v. Hauptzollamt Lörrach, Case C-328/97, [1998] E.C.R. I-8357; Laboratoires Sarget SA v. Fonds d'Intervention et de Régularisation du Marché du Sucre (FIRS), Case C-270/96, [1998] E.C.R. I-1121; Techex Computer + Grafik Vertriebs GmbHv. Hauptzollamt München, Case C-382/95, [1997] E.C.R. I-7363; Leonhard Knubben Spedition GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Mannheim, Case C-143/96, [1997] E.C.R. I-7039; Laboratoires de Thérapeutique Moderne (LTM) v. Fonds d’Intervention et de Régularisation du Marché du Sucre (FIRS), Case C-201/96, [1997] E.C.R. I-6147; Rank Xerox Manufacturing (Nederland) BV v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Case C-67/95, [1997] E.C.R. I-5401; Codiesel — Sociedade de Apoio Técnico à Indústria Ld v. Conselho Técnico Aduaneiro, Case C-105/96, [ 1997] E.C.R. I-3465; Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Ld v. Alfàndega de Lisboa (Tribunal Técnico Aduaneiro de Segunda Instància), Case C-164/95, [ 1997] E.C.R. I-3441 ; Ludwig Wünsche & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, Cases C-274/95, C275/95, and C276/95, [1997] E.C.R. I-2091; VOBIS Microcomputer AG v. Oberfinanzdirektion München, Case C-121/95, [1996] E.C.R. I-3047; Patrick Colin and Daniel Dupré, Cases C-106/94 and C-139/94, [ 1995] E.C.R. I-4759; Ministre des Finances v. Société Pardo & Fils and Camicas SARL, Cases C-59/94 and C-64/94, [ 1995] E.C.R. I-3159; Gausepohl-Fleisch GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion Hamburg, Case C-33/92, [1993] Rec. I-3047; Hauptzollamt Mannheim v. Boehringer Mannheim GmbH, Case C-381/90, [1992] Rec. I-3495; Ludwig Post v. Oberfinanzdirektion München, Case C-120/90, [1991] E.C.R. I-2391 at I-2405-06; Ministère public v. Fauque, Cases C-153/88 to C-157/88, [1990] E.C.R. I-649. For earlier cases, see Günther Henck v. Hauptzollamt Emden, Case 36/71, [1972] Rec. 187, and other decisions discussed in Irish, Maureen “Interpretation and Naming: The Harmonized System in Canadian Customs Tariff Law” (1993) 31 Can. Y.B. Int’l L. 89 at 142–44.Google Scholar Jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice is available online at ˂http://curia.europa.eu˃.
4 Siebrand BV v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Case C-150/08, 7 May 2009, at para. 38 [Siebrand BV]. See Metherma GmbH & Co. KG v. Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf, Case C-403/07, 27 November 2008; BVBA Van Landeghem v. Belgische Staat, Case C-486/06, [2007] E.C.R. I-10661; Medion AG v. Hauptzollamt Duisberg, Canon Deutschland GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Krefeld, Cases C-208/06 and C-209/ 06, [2007] E.C.R. I-7963; Olicom A/S v. Skattenministeriet, Case C-142/06, [2007] E.C.R. I-6675; Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Kauptzollamt Kiel, Case C-229/06, [2007] E.C.R. I-3251; RUMA GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, Case C-183/06, [2007] E.C.R. I-1559; B.A.S. Trucks BV v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Case C-400/05, [2007] E.C.R. I-311; Anagram International Inc. v. Inspecteur van deBelastingdienst—Douanedistrict Rotterdam, Case C-14/05, [2006] E.C.R. I-6763; Uroplasty BV v. Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam, Case C-514/ 04, [2006] E.C.R. I-6721; Kawasaki Motors Europe NVv. Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam, Case C-15/05, [2006] E.C.R. I-3657; Proxxon GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion Köln, Case C-500/04, [2006] E.C.R. I-1545; Intermodal Transports BV v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën, Case C-495/03, [2005] E.C.R. I-8151; DFDS BV v. Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam, Case C-396/02, [2004] E.C.R. I-8439; Krings GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, Case C-130/02, [2004] E.C.R. I-2121; Holz Geenen GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion München, Case C-309/98, [2000] E.C.R. I-1975; HauptzollamtHamburg-St. Annen v. Thyssen Haniel Logistic GbmH, Case C-459/93, [ 1995] E.C.R. I-1381.
5 Hauptzollamt Osnabrück v. Kleiderwerke Hela Lampe GmbH & Co. KG, Case 222/85, [1986] E.C.R. 2449. See HandelsondernemingJ.Mikx BV v. Minister van Enonomische Zaken, Case 90/85, [ 1986] E.C.R. 1695.
6 Côté, Pierre-André, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada, 3rd edition (Scarborough: Carswell, 2000);Google Scholar Sullivan, Ruth L. Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 5th edition (Markham: LexisNexis, 2008);Google Scholar Graham, Randal N. Statutory Interpretation: Theory and Practice (Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2001);Google Scholar Beaulac, Stéphane Handbook on Statutory Interpretation: General Methodology, Canadian Charter and International Law (Markham: LexisNexis, 2008)Google Scholar; Willis, John “Statute Interpretation in a Nutshell” (1938) 16 Can.Google Scholar Bar Rev. 1; Eskridge, William N. Jr., “The Case of the Speluncean Explorers: Twentieth-Century Statutory Interpretation in a Nutshell” (1993)Google Scholar 61 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1731 .
7 Hart, H.L.A. “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals” (1958) 71 Harv. L. Rev. 593 at 607 and 613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Fuller, Lon L. “Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart” (1958) 71 Harv. L. Rev. 630 at 637–38 and 661–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Hart also criticized formalism and the description of legal reasoning as merely the application of deductive logic to facts that presented themselves already neatly classified (at 602 and 607–12).
9 Postema, Gerald “Positivism and the Separation of Realists from Their Skepticism: Normative Guidance, the Rule of Law and Legal Reasoning,” in Cane, Peter ed., The Hart-Fuller Debate:Fifty Years On (Oxford: Hart Publishing, forthcoming 2009), Google Scholar see conference papers available online at ˂http://law.anu.edu.au/JFCALR/ hart_fuller.asp˃. Postema notes that Hart also discussed the operation of practical reasoning in the penumbra. Decision making in the penumbra was apparently the usual situation for Hart: “[A]fter all is said and done we must remember … how exceptional is this feeling that one way of deciding a case is imposed upon us as the only natural or rational elaboration of some rule. Surely it cannot be doubted that, for most cases of interpretation, the language of choice between alternatives … better conveys the realities of the situation … [H]ere if anywhere we live among uncertainties between which we have to choose, and … the existing law imposes only limits on our choice and not the choice itself.” Hart, supra note 7 at 629.
10 Schauer, Frederick “(Re)taking Hart,” book review of Nicola Lacey, A Life of H.L.A. Hart: The Nightmare and the Noble Dream (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), (2006) 119 Harv. L. Rev. 852 at 865–67.Google Scholar See Morawetz, Thomas “Law as Experience: Theory and the Internal Aspect of Law” (1999) 52 S. M. U. L. Rev. 28 at 39:Google Scholar “[Hart’s] account was limited by the assumption, inherent in the philosophical strategies of his time, that the openness and indeterminacies of law as a social practice were to be explained through the indeterminacies of language.”
11 See Schlag, Pierre “No Vehicles in the Park”(1999–2000) 23 Seattle U.L. Rev. 381 at 387.Google Scholar
12 Alexander, Larry “All or Nothing at All? The Intentions of Authorities and the Authority of Intentions,” in Marmor, Andrei ed., Law and Interpretation: Essays in Legal Philosophy (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1995) 357 at 358.Google Scholar
13 Bix, Brian “Legal Reasoning, the Rule of Law and Legal Theory: Comments on Gerald Postema, ‘Positivism and the Separation of the Realists from their Skepticism,’” in Cane, Peter, supra note 9 at 9 (conference paper).Google Scholar
14 Endicott, Timothy A.O. “Linguistic Indeterminacy” (1996) 16 Oxford J. Legal Stud. 667 at 688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Fuller, supra note 8 at 636. While questioning Hart’s separation of law and morality, Leslie Green agrees that law can be consistent with overwhelming iniquity and observes that mere rule of law is “not an unqualified human good.” Green, Leslie “Positivism and the Inseparability of Law and Morals” (2008) N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1035 at 1058.Google Scholar See also Bix, Brian, “H.L.A. Hart and the Hermeneutic Turn in Legal Theory” (1999) 52 S.M.U. L. Rev. 167 at 195–98.Google Scholar
16 Naffine, Ngaire “The Common Discourse of Hart and Fuller,” in Cane, Peter supra note 9.Google Scholar
17 See, for example, Hibbitts, Bernard J. “Making Sense of Metaphors: Visuality, Aurality and the Reconfiguration of American Legal Discourse” (1994) 16 Cardozo L. Rev. 229.Google Scholar
18 Lakoff, George Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987) esp. at 43–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The title of the book comes from a category in Dyirbal, an Aboriginal language of Australia, which contains linkages quite different from those in European languages (at 92ff.).
19 Winter, Steven L. A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life and Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001);Google Scholar Winter, Steven L. “Transcendental Nonsense, Meta-phoric Reasoning, and the Cognitive Stakes for Law” (1988) 137 U. Penn. L. Rev. 1105;Google Scholar Winter, Steven L. “The Cognitive Dimension of the Agon between Legal Power and Narrative Meaning” (1989) 87 Mich. L. Rev.2225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 Winter, Clearing in the Forest, supra note 19 at 73.
21 Ibid. at 22.
22 Ibid. at 76, citing Rips, Lance J. “Inductive Judgments about Natural Categories” (1975) 14 J. Verbal Learning & Verbal Behaviour 665.Google Scholar
23 Winter, Clearing in the Forest, supra note 19 at 304, 316–17.
24 Ibid. at 203–4.
25 Ibid. at 203.
26 Bowers, Frederick Linguistic Aspects of Legislative Expression (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1989) at 141. For further discussion of classification, see 139–64.Google Scholar
27 Winter, “Transcendental Nonsense,” supra note 19 at 1178. As Winter points out, we would probably now consider that a child’s tricycle was permitted in the park and, indeed, was one of the uses protected by the rule, although some nineteenth-century views would have resisted allowing such recreational activities to disturb the pastoral calm of a park (Winter, Clearing in the Forest, supra note 19 at 204–5 ).
28 Winter, Clearing in the Forest, supra note 19 at 238–39.
29 Feinman, Jay M. “Jurisprudence of Classification” (1989) 41 Stanford L. Rev. 661 at 709–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30 According to the Federal Court of Appeal, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) was clearly wrong, since the tribunal had used its own interpretation of what constituted a “motor-car type steering system” and had decided that the elaboration of that term in an HS Explanatory Note was not adequate to distinguish motorcycles from other motor vehicles. Suzuki Canada Inc. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2003] C.I.T.T. No. 35 (Apps. AP-99-114, AP-99-115, AP-2000-08), rev’d [2004] F.C.J. No. 615 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 243, foll’d Arctic Cat Sales Inc. v. Commissioner of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2006] C.I.T.T. No. 8 (Apps. AP-2005-005, AP-2005-010, AP-2005-011, AP-2005-020). In Suzuki, the Federal Court of Appeal reached the same result as it had in an earlier dispute where the importer argued unsuccessfully that all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) were tractors rather than motor vehicles: Yamaha Motor Canada Ltd. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2000] C.I.T.T. No. 106 (App. AP-99-105), aff’d, [2002] F.C.J. No. 101 (C.A.). In an HS Explanatory Note, tractors are defined by their use as “vehicles constructed essentially for hauling or pushing another vehicle, appliance or load” and this did not cover ATVs. On the application of the tractor heading to lawnmowers, see Marubeni Canada Ltd. v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs and Excise (DMNRCE), [1994] C.I.T.T. No. 154 (App. AP-93-311 ) (finding the imported goods to be tractors); Ford New Holland Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1995] C.I.T.T. No. 7 (App. AP-93-388) (also tractors); Steen Hansen Motorcycles Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1997] C.I.T.T. No. 48 (App. AP-95-065) (finding the imported goods to be powered mowers); Honda Canada Inc. v. DMNRCE, [ 1999] C.I.T.T. No. 3 (App. AP-97-111 ) (also powered mowers); AYP (Canada) Inc. v. DMNRCE, [ 1999] C.I.T.T. No. 85 (Apps. AP-97-063, AP-97-067, AP-97-077, AP-97-079, AP-97-084, AP-97-085, AP-97-096, AP-97-103, AP-97-115, AP-97-136), aff’d [2001] F.C.J. No. 736 (also powered mowers).
31 Canadian Tire Corporation Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1995] C.I.T.T. No. 68 (App.AP-94-157).
32 Customs Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-40, s. 2(1), rep. S.C. 1986, c. 1. At the time, the Customs Tariff contained a provision confirming that “[t]he expressions mentioned in section 2 of the Customs Act, whenever they occur herein or in any Act relating to the customs, have the meaning assigned to them respectively by that section.” Customs Tariff, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-41, s. 2(3).
33 Prairie Equipment & Radiators Limited v. DMNRCE (1952), 1 T.B.R. 56 (T.B., App. 247).
34 General Supply Co. of Canada v. DMNRCE (1952), 1 T.B.R. 76 (T.B., App. 269), aff'd [ 1954] Ex.C.R. 340, 1 T.B.R. 81 (Ex.Ct.). The decision was foreshadowed by an excise tax decision: J.H. Ryder Machinery Company Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1952), 1 T.B.R. 75 (T.B., App. 262)
35 J.H. Ryder Machinery Limited v. DMNRCE (1975), 6 T.B.R. 278 (T.B., App. 1095). See also Burrard Amusements Limited v. DMNRCE ( 1960), 2 T.B.R. 210 (T.B., App. 524); Canadian Reynolds v. DMNRCE (1972) CGaz.1972J.1067 (T.B., App. 967); Mont Sutton v. DMNRCE (1972) CGaz.1972J.1927 (T.B., App. 983); J.R Macdonald v. DMNRCE (1980), 7 T.B.R. 156, 2 C.E.R. 228 (T.B., App. 1493); Universal Go-Tract Limited v. DMNRCE (1981), 7 T.B.R. 392, 3 C.E.R. 239 (T.B., App. 1683), aff’d (1982) 4 C.E.R. 381 (F.C.A.); AG Marketing v. DMNRCE (1985), 10 T.B.R. 228, 10 C.E.R. 105 (T.B., App. 2309); Magnatrim v. DMNRCE (1988), 18 C.E.R. 13 (T.B., App. 2841).
36 Siebrand BV, supra note 4 at para. 38. The Tariff Board of Canada had some minor experience with a requirement that use be reflected in physical characteristics of goods. In a decision in 1954, the board over-ruled a practice that the department had followed for “many years” to accept end use certificates for entry under an item covering “articles of glass … designed to be cut” (Reference re Administration of Tariff Item 326e (1954), 1 T.B.R. 192 (T.B., App. 322)). In interpreting this wording, the board decided that the crucial factor was not whether the glass was actually to be embellished later by cutting but, rather, whether it was of a particular quality indicating that the manufacturer had designed it for this purpose. For similar items, see Terochem Laboratories Limited v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 223, 11 C.E.R. 319 (T.B., App. 2401); Western Medi-AidProducts Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 229, 11 C.E.R. 326 (T.B., Apps. 2357).
37 Staatssecretaris van Financiën v. Kamino International Logistics BV, Case C-376/07, 19 February 2009 [Kamino].
38 Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi, 10 September 2008, Staatssecretaris van Financiën v. Kamino International Logistics BV, Case C-376/07, at para. 74.
39 Kamino, supra note 37 at para. 26.
40 Ikegami Electronics (Europe) GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, Case C-467/03, [2005] E.C.R. I-2389.
41 Siebrand BV, supra note 4 at para. 38. In Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St. Annen v. Thyssen Haniel Logistic GbmH, Case C-459/93, [1995] E.C.R. I-1381, price was a factor indicating that the amino acid mixture in question was intended for medical use, since it was too expensive for use as a food additive (at para. 16).
42 BVBA Van Landeghem v. Belgische Staat, Case C-486/06, [2007] E.C.R. I-10661 at para. 40.
43 Board, Tariff Reference No. 163, Canada’s Customs Tariff According to the Harmonized System, Vol. 1 (1985) at 5.Google Scholar
44 Previous tariff items 41105-1 and 44200-1, quoted from Thomas Lindsay and Bruce Lindsay, Outline of Customs in Canada, 6th edition (Vancouver: Erin Publishers, 1985) at 13. The French version of end use items usually referred to goods “devant servir à/dans” the particular use.
45 Superior Brake & Hydraulic Specialists Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 13, 10 C.E.R. 271 (T.B., Apps. 2245, 2254).
46 R v. Confection Alapo Inc. (1980), 2 C.E.R. 249 (F.C.T.D.); R v. Paragon Computer (1985), 12 C.E.R. 185 (B.C.C.A.).
47 The items seemed to carry with them an automatic sense of the tariff in application. Cost factors could have an influence, as in Alex L. Clark Limited v. DMNRCE (1967), 4 T.B.R. 53 (T.B., App. 860). In this appeal, the board decided that imported tape was not “for use in the recording and reproduction of sound” even though it could function quite well for this purpose. The imported goods were actually computer tape, which was more expensive than ordinary audio tape, and the price differential may have helped the board to determine that the end use would not be met.
48 Board, Tariff Reference No. 163, Canada’s Customs Tariff According to the Harmonized System, Vol. 5, Part 3 (1988) (Consolidation of Concessionary Provisions — Statutory Concessionary Tariff Items) at 4–5.Google Scholar
49 Customs Tariff, S.C. 1997, c. 36. Chapter 99 of the revised tariff contains some end use items and is not subject to the rule of specificity in General Interpretative Rule 3(a).
50 See Customs Tariff, R.S.C. 1985 (3d Supp.), c. 41, s. 4, rep. and sub. Customs Tariff, S.C. 1997, c. 36, s. 2(1). The French version of the new definition applies the same requirement to the phrases “devant servir à” and “devant servir dans.” A similar definition was actually added to the earlier Customs Tariff in February 1987, prior to implementation of the HS: An Act to Amend the Customs Tariff and the Duties Relief Act, S.C. 1987, c. 29, s. 1.
51 In the French version, this definition refers to goods “devant être utilisé pour” or “devant être utilisé dans” the particular sector.
52 Asea Brown Boveri Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1991] C.I.T.T. No. 48 (App. AP-89-180).
53 Diamant Boart Truco Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1992] C.I.T.T. No. 89 (App. AP-90-166). The item did not cover the imported drill bits at issue in a subsequent appeal, however: Universal Grinding Wheel Division of Unicorn Abrasive of Canada Ltd. (now Diamant Boart Craelius Inc.) v. DMNRCE, [1994] C.I.T.T. No. 10 (Apps. AP-90-213, AP-90-214). Continuity was also at issue when the codes were terminated in 1998. In Formica Canada, the appellant argued that goods previously covered by a code should be classified in the tariff item that was indicated for that code in the concordance table provided along with the amendment. The tribunal rejected this argument and held that the revised wording of an exclusion in the item was now wide enough to exclude the goods, which were polymers or copolymers of phenol-formaldehyde: Formica Canada Inc. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2002] C.I.T.T. No. 18 (App. AP-2000-041) at para. 24. The classification under the previous code had been confirmed in Formica Canada Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1998] C.I.T.T. No. 5 (App. AP-96-205), aff’d. [1999] F.C.J. No. 580 (C.A.). In the 1998 decision, the exclusionary language in the code at the time was held insufficient to cover polymers.
54 For cases interpreting various code descriptions, see Jolly Jumper Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1992] C.I.T.T. No. 109 (App. AP-91-235); Kimberly-Clark Canada Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1994] C.I.T.T. No. 28 (App. AP-92-303); Hibernia Management and Development Company Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1998] C.I.T.T. No. 35 (App. AP-96-228); Boehringer Mannheim Canada Ltd. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2001] C.I.T.T. No. 17 (App. AP-99-104). See also Clariant (Canada) Inc. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2002] C.I.T.T. No. 8 (App. AP-2000-022).
55 ComputalogLtd. v. DMNRCE, [1994] C.I.T.T. No. 82 (App. AP-92-265). To the same effect, see FlextubeInc. v. DMNRCE, [1999] C.I.T.T. No. 16 (App. AP-95-097) [Flextube Inc.]; Nowsco Well Services Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1999] C.I.T.T. No. 39 (App. AP-95-128). For a review of definitions of manufacturing commonly used in customs and sales tax law, see Movado Group of Canada, Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1998] C.I.T.T. No. 60 (App. AP-97-027) (attaching a strap to a watch head did not constitute manufacturing or production).
56 Northern Alberta Processing Co. v. DMNRCE, [ 1996] C.I.T.T. No. 79 (App. AP-94-307). As well, on the facts, it was not clear that any of the appellant’s output was actually used for the commercial production of fertilizer.
57 Sandvik Tamrock Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [2000] C.I.T.T. No. 45 (App. AP-99-083), rev’d [2001] F.C.J. No. 1692 (C.A.). If the view of the CITT had prevailed, the tariff description would have covered only a mechanical device used in soft-rock mining such as coal mining, which directs the rock or ore along a conveyor system to the back of the machine. The Federal Court of Appeal used purposive interpretation, the approach that applied to the pre-HS end use items in the decisions of the Tariff Board. As discussed later in the section on coverage of those end use items, the case law of the European Court of Justice takes a narrower view of explicit use descriptions and likely would have agreed with the CITT result.
58 Customs Tariff, R.S.C. 1985 (3d Supp.), c. 41, s. 4.
59 Atlas Alloys, a Division of Rio Algom Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1996] C.I.T.T. No. 96 (App.AP-95-194).
60 Flextube Inc., supra note 55 at para. 35. The tribunal has also used definitions from Schedule I in Schedule II, citing s. 68(3) of the Customs Tariff, R.S.C. 1985 (3d Supp.), c. 41: “The words and expressions used in Schedule II, wherever those words and expressions are used in Schedule I, have the same meanings as in Schedule I.” Simmons Canada Inc. and Les Entreprises Sommex Ltée v. DMNRCE, [1997] C.I.T.T. No. 92 (Apps. AP-96-063, AP-96-085, AP-96-089); Richards Packaging Inc. and Duopac Packaging Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1999] C.I.T.T. No. 12 (Apps. AP-98-007, AP-98-010), aff’d [2000] F.C.J. No. 2027 (C.A.). In Richards, a definition that was stated to apply only for classification within a subheading in a particular HS chapter was nevertheless applied to a code in a duty reduction order.
61 See, for example, Sony of Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [ 1996] C.I.T.T. No. 87 (App. AP-95-262) [Sony of Canada], discussed later in this article, in which a tape cartridge was held to be “for use in” a magnetic tape drive, despite the fact that it was not permanently attached to the drive.
62 Customs Tariff, R.S.C. 1985 (3d Supp.), c. 41.
63 Customs Tariff, S.C. 1997, c. 36.
64 Sony of Canada, supra note 61 . The tribunal mentioned that the code language at issue was not “for use in the manufacture of” but simply “for use in.” The tribunal rejected an argument that the French version required goods to be attached directly to each other in Asea Brown Boveri Inc. v. DMNRCE, [ 1996] C.I.T.T. No. 76 (App. AP-95-189). In that appeal, equipment was held to be for use in process control apparatus since it was attached to the electrical transmission system for a station that had a control centre. In Jam Industries, the wording “entrer dans la composition” had some influence on the tribunal’s decision, in which synthesizers, digital pianos, and digital organs were held not be “articles for use in … automatic data processing machines” (that is, computers), since the synthesizers, pianos, and organs did not complement the function of the computers. Rather, the musical instruments could be played on their own and the computer, when attached, would only complement the functions of the instruments. Jam Industries Ltd. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2006] C.I.T.T. No. 32 (App. AP-2005-006), aff’d. [2007] F.C.J. No. 768 (C.A.).
65 Asea Brown Boveri Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1998] C.I.T.T. No. 36 (Apps. AP-93-392, AP-93-393, AP-94-001, AP-94-002, AP-94-007, AP-94-019, AP-94-020, AP-94-026, AP-94-028, AP-94-030, AP-94-033, AP-94-043, AP-94-055, AP-94-060, AP-94-064, AP-94-068, AP-94-077, AP-94-079, AP-94-097, AP-96-118); Asea Brown Boveri Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1999] C.I.T.T. No. 99 (App. AP-97-123); Asea Brown Boveri Inc. v. DMNRCE, [2000] C.I.T.T. No. 17 (App. AP-98-001). See further Asea Brown Boveri Inc. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2005] C.I.T.T. No. 75 (Apps. AP-2002-027, AP-2002-029 to AP-2002-033, AP-2002-108).
66 Asea Brown Boveri Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1999] C.I.T.T. No. 100 (App. AP-97-137), rev’d on other grounds [2001] F.C.J. No. 658 (T.D); Asea Brown Boveri Inc. v. DMNRCE, [2000] C.I.T.T. No. 16 (Apps. AP-97-124, AP-97-125). See further Asea Brown Boveri Inc. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2003] C.I.T.T. No. 39 (App. AP-2002-004).
67 Prins Greenhouses Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [2001] C.I.T.T. No. 28 (App. AP-99-045).
68 EntrelecInc. v. DMNRCE, [1998] C.I.T.T. No. 76 (App. AP-97-029), rev’d [2000] F.C.J. No. 1499 (C.A.); Entrelec v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2003] C.I.T.T. No. 20 (App. AP-2000-051), aff’d [2004] F.C.J. 717 (C.A.). In the previous system for end use items, the burden of proof was normally on the importer, since the circumstances concerning use would be within the knowledge of the importer and subsequent purchasers. The burden could sometimes be difficult for importers to meet, especially if the end use involved sales at the retail level. In the Keymar appeal, for example, the imported kerosene heaters were suitable for use on boats, but the distribution and marketing of the goods were not sufficiently limited to prove that they were “for use exclusively in the & equipment of ships or vessels.” Keymar Equipment Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1983), 9 T.B.R. 1, 6 C.E.R. 104 (T.B., Apps. 1898 etc.), aff’d. (1985), 10 C.E.R. 87 (F.C.A.).
69 Kappler Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1995] C.I.T.T. No. 69 (App. AP-94-232) (protective suits were for use in a noxious atmosphere since they were used for asbestos removal, even though there were other possible uses).
70 PHD Canada Distributing Ltd. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2002] C.I.T.T. No. 100 (App. AP-99-116). See also Imation Canada Inc. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2001] C.I.T.T. No. 84 (App. AP-2000-047) (film was for use in a laser imager); Sony of Canada Ltd. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2004] C.I.T.T. No. 11 (App. AP-2001-097) (magnetic tape recorders were for use in computers if they were imported with linking cables and software). Even if it were met, the description “articles for use in … automatic data processing machines” might give way to a more specific description, as occurred in Pelco Worldwide Headquarters v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2007] C.I.T.T. No. 63 (Apps. AP-2006-016, AP-2006-018), where digital video recorders were held to be video recording apparatuses.
71 Agri-Pack v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2004] C.I.T.T. No. 129 (App. AP-2003-010), aff’d but ref’d back on other grounds [2005] F.C.J. No. 2059 (C.A.).
72 WinnersOnly (Canada) Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1996] C.I.T.T. No. 35 (App. AP-94-142): “wooden furniture of a kind used in offices and parts thereof”; Bio Agri Mix Ltd. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2000] C.I.T.T. No. 104 (App. AP-99-085): “preparations of a kind used in animal feeding.”
73 Ballarat Corporation Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1995] C.I.T.T. No. 85 (App. AP-93-359) [ Ballarat]. To the same effect, see Noma Industries Limited v. DMNRCE, [ 1997] C.I.T.T. No. 22 (App. AP-96-061).
74 Black & DeckerCanada Inc. v. DMNRCE, [ 1997] C.I.T.T. No. 12 (Apps. AP-95-020, AP-95-046, AP-96-069). Evidence of actual use helped to persuade the tribunal that imported coiled steel tubing was “of a kind used in drilling for oil or gas” in Flextube Inc. , supra note 55.
75 CostcoCanada Inc. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [ 2001] C.I.T.T. No. 7 (App. AP-2000-05) at para. 18. Goods were found to be “electro-thermic appliances of a kind used for domestic purposes” in Sunbeam Corp. (Canada) v. DMNRCE, [1997] C.I.T.T. No. 21 (App. AP-96-054), a dispute that did not involve the interpretation of the domestic purposes condition. See also Johnson & Johnson Inc. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2004] C.I.T.T. No. 53 (App. AP-2003-030) (“of a kind used for household or sanitary purposes”).
76 Alliance Rona Home Inc. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2002] C.I.T.T. No. 78 (App. AP-2001-065). In Euro-Line Appliances v. DMNRCE, [1997] C.I.T.T. No. 9 (App. AP-95-230), the tribunal looked to marketing, use, and physical features to decide that the goods in issue were “household-type” washing machines. See further Black & Decker Canada Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1992] C.I.T.T. No. 143 (App. AP-90-192), in which the tribunal decided that goods could be domestic appliances even if they were for domestic chores outside the four walls of a house.
77 Canadian Tire Group Ltd. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2007] C.I.T.T. No. 93 (App. AP-2006-038) at para. 38.
78 Decolin Inc. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2005] C.I.T.T. No. 58 (App. AP-2004-011), aff'd [2006] F.C.J. No. 1963 (C.A.). The tribunal was of the view that it would be unfair to give retroactive effect to the amendment. The Court of Appeal nevertheless noted with apparent approval the tribunal’s practice of considering any amendment to the Explanatory Notes, even an amendment effective after the importation of the goods in question. The Canada Border Services Agency argued unsuccessfully that the amendment, which Canada had proposed at the World Customs Organization (WCO), simply clarified the heading without changing its scope. In Franklin Mint Inc. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2006] C.I.T.T. No. 63 (App. AP-2004-061 ), Christmas plates were articles for Christmas festivities even though they could be purchased year round, since they were for display use during the holiday season (para. 52). Christmas calendars containing chocolates did not qualify as articles for Christmas festivities, however, in Morris National Inc. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2007] C.I.T.T. No. 20 (App. AP-2005-039), since the packaging did not change the fact that the goods were predominantly chocolates (para. 20).
79 Ballarat, supra note 73.
80 3319067 Canada Inc. (Universal Lites) v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2006] C.I.T.T. No. 34 (App. AP-2004-017), aff’d. [2007] F.C.J. No. 925 (C.A.).
81 Flora Manufacturing & Distributing Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [2000] F.C.J. No. 1196 (C.A.), rev’g [1998] C.I.T.T. No. 68 (App. AP-97-052). See DSM Nutritional Products Canada Inc. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2008] C.I.T.T. No. 83 (App. AP-2007-012), in which the CITT explicitly refused to follow a WCO Classification Opinion and found the goods there in question to be medicaments. On the interpretation of “medicaments,” see further Upjohn Inter-American Corporation v. DMNRCE, [1992] C.I.T. .T. No. 8 (Apps. AP-90-197, AP-90-146); Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2003] C.I.T.T. No. 86 (Apps. AP-2002-038 to AP-2002-090); Roche Vitamins Canada Inc. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2006] C.I.T.T. No. 10 (App. AP-2003-036).
82 Yves Ponroy Canada v. DMNRCE, [2000] F.C.J. No. 1202 (C.A.), affirming the following four decisions: Yves Ponroy Canada v. DMNRCE, [1997] C.I.T.T. No. 126 (App. AP-96-117); Flora Manufacturing & Distributing Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1998] C.I.T.T. No. 47 (App. AP-97-002); Flora Manufacturing & Distributing Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1998] C.I.T.T .No. 69 (App. AP-97-058); Hilary’s Distribution Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1998] C.I.T.T. No. 72 (App. AP-97-010). In these four decisions, the CITT had evidence showing that the goods were used for the treatment of disease and had some curative powers.
83 Heco Medical Group Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1996] C.I.T.T. No. 44 (App. AP-95-089).
84 International Imports for Competitive Shooting Equipment Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1999] C.I.T.T. No. 69 (App. AP-98-076). The phrase covered gloves used and designed for the sport of target shooting. See Sigvaris Corporation v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2009] C.I.T.T. No. 3 (App. AP-2007-009).
85 ERV Parent Co. Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1997] C.I.T.T. No. 115 (Apps. AP-95-127, AP-95-191 ). The phrase covered components that had no other uses. They were “prepared” in the sense of having been treated, as they had been bent and drilled for installation and the remaining work could be done onsite.
86 Reference Regarding the Tariff Classification of Certain Butteroil Blends, [1999] CITT No. 25. The tribunal majority decided that the butter oil blend at issue did not qualify, because it could not “take the place of butter in substantially all respects and in substantially all conditions” (at para. 79). The blend was used primarily for making ice cream. It did not have the taste or texture of butter. One tribunal member dissented, citing Ballarat, supra note 73, to the effect that the phrase “suitable for use as a butter substitute” imposed a lesser requirement than meeting substantially all the purposes of butter. Since the blend could replace butter in the making of ice cream, it acted as a butter substitute, in the view of the dissenting member. The dissenting member also stated that the blend would meet a commercial reality or commercial fitness test for interpretation of the phrase “suitable for use” in some pre-HS US jurisprudence cited to the tribunal (para. 102, citing United States v. F.W. Myers & Co., Inc. 60 C.C.P.A. 134, 476 F. 2d 1377, (1973) C.C.P.A. LEXIS 370, C.A.D. 1097; Keer, Maurer and Company v. United States, 46 C.C.P.A. 110, 1959 CCPA LEXIS 191, C.A.D. 710; Kahlen v. United States (No. 448), United States Court of Customs Appeals, 12 October 1911 at 208). According to the dissenting member, if a product is commercially used as a substitute for butter, then it would meet a commercial fitness test of being suitable for use as a substitute.
87 Customs Tariff, S.C. 1997, c. 36, s. 2.
88 Record Tools Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1997] C.I.T.T. No. 95 (App. AP-96-225). In Gladu Tools Inc. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2005] C.I.T.T. No. 55 (App. AP-2004-018), the tribunal decided that knives fitted into tools that were in turn installed on woodworking machines should be classified as “knives … for machines … for woodworking,” rejecting an argument by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) that the knives had to be mounted directly onto the machines to qualify (at para. 35). The decision was reversed on appeal on other grounds. Gladu Tools Inc. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2007] F.C.J. No. 781 (C.A.).
89 Bauer Nike Hockey Inc. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2006] C.I.T.T. No. 58 (App. AP-2005-019). See also Power Twins Performance Parts Ltd. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2003] C.I.T.T. No. 59 (App. AP-2002-022) (face shields).
90 Groupe Cabico Inc. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2007] C.I.T.T. No. 92 (App. AP-2006-004).
91 Asea Brown Boveri Inc. v. DMNRCE, AP-89-180, [1991] C.I.T.T. No. 48 (App.AP-89-180).
92 Pelco Worldwide Headquarters v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2007] C.I.T.T. No. 63 (Apps. AP-2006-016, AP-2006-018); Carlon Canada Limited v. DMNRCE, [1995] C.I.T.T. No. 46 (App. AP-94-168).
93 Brooks Wetsuits Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue, [1999] F.C.J. No. 1547 (T.D.).
94 Spectra/Premium Industries Inc. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2008] C.I.T.T. No. 16 (App. AP-2006-053), paras. 32-34, aff’d [2009] F.C.J. No. 313 (C.A.). As discussed later in the section on the coverage of the previous end use items, the Tariff Board took a wider approach to interpretation of those items. The decision in Spectra/Premium is similar to the case law of the European Court of Justice, noted in that section. See further Interprovincial Corrosion Control Company Limited v. DMNRCE, [1997] C.I.T.T. No. 59 (App. AP-96-041); Hibernia Management and Development Company Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [ 1998] C.I.T.T. No. 35 (App. AP-96-228).
95 Opal Optical Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1994] C.I.T.T. No. 65 (App. AP-92-385).
96 Rona Corporation Inc. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [ 2008] C.I.T.T. No. 13 (App. AP-2006-033) at para. 30.
97 N.C. Cameron & Sons Ltd. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2007] C.I.T.T. No. 50 (App. AP-2006-022) at para. 21.
98 Mon-Tex Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2004] F.C.J. No. 1712 (C.A.), rev’g [2003] C.I.T.T. No. 81 (App. AP-2002-103).
99 Mammoet Canada Eastern Ltd. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2006] C.I.T.T. No. 26 (Apps. AP-2004-024 to AP-2004-046) at para. 25.
100 An Explanatory Note helped to identify the purpose of goods in Supertek, which dealt with the classification of small battery-operated push-on lights. Although the lights could be carried, the tribunal decided they were not “portable lamps” since, according to the Explanatory Note, this description was for lamps “designed for use when carried in the hand or on the person.” The lights at issue would normally be fastened to a wall in a closet or cupboard. Supertek Canada Inc. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2003] C.I.T.T. No. 41 (App. AP-2001-095).
101 816392 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Freedom Motors) v. DMNRCE, [1996] C.I.T.T. No. 86 (Apps. AP-95-299, AP-96-053). See further Dominion Sample Ltd. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2003] F.C.J. No. 1567, at paras.44-47.
102 Pepper spray was still an offensive weapon, even though the importer intended to use it to defend against dogs, bears, and other animals. Roozen v. DMNRCE, [1999] C.I.T.T. No. 17 (App. AP-96-057).
103 Norsk Fitness Products Inc. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2006] C.I.T.T. No. 44 (App. AP-2003-045).
104 Zellers Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1998] C.I.T.T. No. 53 (App. AP-97-057) at para. 57.
105 Ibid. at para. 48.
106 For an earlier case using participatory interpretation to decide that small play tents were toys rather than tents, see World Famous Sales of Canada Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1994] C.I.T.T. No. 124 (App. AP-93-263).
107 Regal Confections Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1999] C.I.T.T. No. 51 (Apps. AP-98-043, AP-98-044, AP-98-051 ) at para. 22. See further Havi Global Solutions (Canada) Limited Partnership v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2008] C.I.T.T. No. 67 (App. AP-2007-014); Korhani Canada Inc. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2008] C.I.T.T. No. 79 (App. AP-2007-008).
108 Ibid. at para. 30. On the interpretation of toys, see further Franklin Mint Inc. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2006] C.I.T.T. No. 63 (App.AP-2004- 061 ); N.C. Cameron & Sons Ltd. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency, [2007] C.I.T.T. No. 50 (App. AP-2006-022).
109 Partylite Gifts Ltd. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [ 2004] C.I.T.T. No. 18 (App. AP-2003-008) at paras. 41, 44, aff’d. [2005] F.C.J. No.753 (C.A.).
110 Neckermann Versand AG v. Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main-Ost, Case C-395/93, [1994] E.C.R. I-4027.Goods were also classified by their main use in Wiener S.I. GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Emmerich, Case C-338/95, [1997] E.C.R. 6495; Anagram International Inc. v. Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — Douanedistrict Rotterdam, Case C-14/05, [2006] E.C.R. I-6763
111 Hauptzollamt Osnabrück v. Kleiderwerke Hela Lampe GmbH & Co. KG, Case 222/85, [1986] E.C.R. 2449. See also Handelsonderneming J.Mikx BV v. Minister van Enonomische Zaken, Case 90/85, [ 1986] E.C.R. 1695.
112 Reference re Logging Motor Trucks (1951), 1 T.B.R. 51 (T.B., App. 243).
113 Fleetwood Logging Company v. DMNRCE (1954), 1 T.B.R. 161 (T.B., App. 308), aff'd [1954] Ex.C.R. 695, 1 T.B.R. 162.
114 Reference … on Logging Camp Machinery (1956), 1 T.B.R. 258 (T.B., App. 380). See also Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company v. DMNRCE (1955), 1 T.B.R. 236 (T.B.,App. 340).
115 Industrial and Road Equipment Ltd. v. DMNRCE, Canadian Chromalox Co. v. DMNRCE, Sherritt Gordon Mines Limited v. DMNRCE, Clark Compressor Co. v. DMNRCE (1958), 2 T.B.R 110 (T.B. Apps. 441, 449, 451, 461), aff’d (sub nom Dorr-Oliver Long Ltd. v. Sherritt Gordon Mines Ltd.) (1959) 2 T.B.R. 113 (Ex. Ct.); Sherritt Gordon Mines Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1961), 2 T.B.R. 231 (T.B., App. 548). The pipe fittings in Sherritt Gordon Mines Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1961), 2 T.B.R. 234 (T.B., App. 549) would have been covered by the same end use item as well, except that they were not sufficiently complex to be described as “apparatus,” as the item required. See further Ocelot Chemicals v. DMNRCE ( 1985), 10 T.B.R. 286, 10 C.E.R. 208 (T.B., App. 2019), in which the board confirmed a settlement between the parties to the effect that catalyst carriers and reformer tube assemblies were included in a tariff item for “machinery and apparatus for use in the distillation or recovery of products from natural gas … parts thereof,” under a rather wide interpretation of the word “recovery” in trade usage to mean “production.”
116 Ersco Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1981), 7 T.B.R. 432, 3 C.E.R. 263 (T.B., App. 1571). See also Canadian Pacific Limited v. DMNRCE (1985), 10 T.B.R. 252, 10 C.E.R. 121 (T.B., App. 2331). A similarly wide view was taken in an Excise Tax Act appeal, Underwater Gas Developers Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1960), 2 T.B.R. 203 (T.B., App. 516), in which work boats and a hydraulic lift used in their repair and maintenance were covered by an end use item for the development of natural gas wells since they were part of a drilling operation in Lake Erie.
117 A more narrow view of the physical scope of an end use item was taken in the Major Irrigation appeal concerning equipment used for handling potatoes. The board held that the equipment was not agricultural machinery since it was used for highway shipment as well as on the farm and the qualification “for use on the farm for farm purposes only,” which appeared several times in the tariff item, was taken to apply to the whole item: Major Irrigation (1974) Limited v. DMNRCE (1982), 8 T.B.R. 446, 5 C.E.R. 93 (T.B., App. 1830). See also Heavy Duty Products v. DMNRCE (1962), 2 T.B.R. 282 (T.B., App. 590), in which stainless steel sinks for washing milking apparatus did not qualify as “equipment for milking parlours” since for sanitary reasons they could not be used in the milking parlours themselves where the cows were kept; Martin & Stewart Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1983), 8 T.B.R. 502, 5 C.E.R. 126 (T.B., App. 1659), in which hides and skins were not farm produce within the phrase “wire and twine for baling farm produce” because they had been too far processed from the point at which the animal passed the farm gate. See further Caristrap Corporation v. DMNRCE (1967), 4 T.B.R. 61 (T.B., App. 863).
118 Malden Mills of Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1982), 8 T.B.R. 126, 4 C.E.R. 89 (T.B., App. 1772).
119 However, see, contra, dissent of Tariff Board member Bertrand in Universal Grinding Wheel v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 194, 6 C.E.R. 236 (T.B., App.2057), aff’d (1986), 11 C.E.R. 157 (F.C.A.).
120 DMNRCE v. Research-Cottrell (Canada) Ltd., [1968] S.C.R. 684, 68 D.L.R. (2d) 194, rev’g [1967] 2 Ex.C.R. 3, 3 T.B.R. 251, rev’g (1965), 3 T.B.R. 248 (T.B., App. 790) [Research-Cottrell].
121 Research-Cottrell S.C.R., supra note 120 at 688.
122 Research-Cottrell T.B.R., supra note 120 at 250.
123 RCA Victor Company v. DMNRCE (1966), 3 T.B.R. 311 (T.B., App. 834).
124 See also J.& P. Coats (Canada) Limited v. DMNRCE (1965), 3 T.B.R. 236 (T.B., App. 781 ) (goods can be for use in the manufacture of products “without entering into every part of the whole process of manufacture” so long as they are for use in some part of that process — at 238); Geigy Chemical Corporation v. DMNRCE (1966), 3 T.B.R. 285 (T.B., App. 806).
125 Harry D. Shields Limited v. DMNRCE (1980), 7 T.B.R. 1, 2 C.E.R. 1 (T.B., App. 1489). The board was using tests drawn from excise tax decisions. See discussion in Maureen Irish, “Machinery Remission: Transparency and the Rule of Law” (1994) 23(2) Can. Bus. L. J. 161 at 183-86.
126 Kipp Kelly Limited v. DMNRCE (1977), 6 T.B.R. 493 (T.B., App. 1182); Kipp Kelly Limited v. DMNRCE (1980), 7 T.B.R. 102, 2 C.E.R. 129 (T.B., App. 1479), aff'd (1981), [1982] 1 F.C. 571, 3 C.E.R. 196 (F.C.A.).
127 The board did not go so far as to say that everything required to prepare the finished product was manufacturing. In the City of Sherbrooke appeal, automatic scales used in the purification of municipal water were not “for use in Canadian manufactures,” since this was simply treatment of the water, not manufacturing of goods: Sherbrooke (City of) v. DMNRCE ( 1981 ), 7 T.B.R. 386, 3 C.E.R. 214 (T.B., App. 1495). See also North-West Bindery Limited v. DMNRCE (1971 ), 5 T.B.R. 133 (T.B., App. 950). And, at the beginning of the process, it cannot be said that everything done to collect and prepare the necessary raw materials qualifies as manufacturing: Ayerst, McKenna & Harrison Limited v. DMNRCE (1969), 4 T.B.R. 398 (T.B., App. 920), aff’d (1970), 4 T.B.R. 404 (Ex.Ct.) — containers used to collect urine from pregnant mares and transport it to premises where estrogen was produced were not "apparatus, equipment … for the manufacture of … hormones.” The Ayerst decision may be constrasted with 3M Canada Inc. v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 262, 7 C.E.R. 299 (T.B., App. 2069), in which coated papers used to transfer photographs by laser fax for newspapers were found to be used in “production” of the newspapers even though they did not become a physical part of the final paper.
128 In Unident Limited v. DMNRCE (1979), 6 T.B.R. 771, 1 C.E.R. 64 (T.B., App. 1377), the reconstruction of damaged teeth was the manufacturing of dental surgical prostheses. See also Novocol Chemical Manufacturing Company v. DMNRCE (1988), 13 T.B.R. 183, 16 C.E.R. 132 (T.B., App. 2731).
129 Calko Mills Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1975), 6 T.B.R. 199 (T.B., App. 1064). See also Promo-Wear Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1981), 7 T.B.R. 267, 3 C.E.R. 32 (T.B., App. 1568), in which actual use was relevant in the board’s decision that the imported urethane foam rolls were used in the manufacture of tips and sides of caps.
130 Allied Toys & Enterprises Limited v. DMNRCE ( 1959), 2 T.B.R. 188 (T.B., App. 499).
131 Joy Manufacturing Co. (Canada) Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 155, 6 C.E.R. 208 (T.B., App. 2083). See also Ingenuity Incorporated v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 416, 15 C.E.R. 52 (T.B., App. 2602).
132 Autoport Limited v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 316, 7 C.E.R. 45 (T.B., App. 2058), referring specifically to Great Canadian Oil Sands Supply Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [ 1976] 2 F.C. 281 (C.A.).
132 The overall tariff item involved was end use, since it covered “sundry articles of metal … for use in metallurgical operations.” Industrial and Road Equipment Ltd. v. DMNRCE, Canadian Chromalox Co. v. DMNRCE, Sherritt Gordon Mines Limited v DMNRCE, Clark Compressor Co. v. DMNRCE (1958), 2 T.B.R 110 (T.B. Apps. 441, 449, 451, 461), aff’d (sub nom Dorr-Oliver Long Ltd. v. Sherritt Gordon Mines Ltd.) (1959) 2 T.B.R. 113 (Ex. Ct.). See further Naramata Co-operative Growers Exchange v. DMNRCE ( 1964), 3 T.B.R. 144 (T.B., App. 726); Cascade Co-operative Union v. DMNRCE, Vernon Fruit Union v. DMNRCE (1966), 3 T.B.R. 281 (T.B., Apps. 804, 823).
134 Landis and Gyr Inc. v. DMNRCE ( 1963), 3 T.B.R. 122 (T.B., App. 708). The item was subsequently held applicable to a whole host of machine-readable indicators: Aritech Inc. (Canada) v. DMNRCE (1985), 10 T.B.R. 81, 9 C.E.R. 29 (T.B., App. 2156); United Industrial Products Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1986), 13 C.E.R. 111 (T.B. . App. 2528); Akhurst Machinery Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 181, 14 C.E.R. 98 (T.B., App. 2630); MTI Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1988), 13 T.B.R. 154, 16 C.E.R. 109 (T.B., App. 2776); Ripley’s Farm v. DMNRCE (1988), 13 T.B.R. 280, 16 C.E.R. 153 (T.B., App. 2681); Stewart Warner Corp. of Canada v. DMNRCE (1988), 17 C.E.R. 188 (T.B., App. 2838). See also Nord Photo Engineering Inc. v. DMNRCE, C.Gaz.1978.I.3951 (T.B., Apps. 1273,1276).
135 Astro-Med GmbHv Oberfinanzdirektion Berlin, Case C-108/92, [1993] Rec. I-3797. To the same effect, see also Siemens Nixdorf Informationssysteme AGv. Hauptzollamt Augsburg, Case C-11 /93, [1994] E.C.R. I-1945; Techmeda Internationale Medizinisch-Technische Marketing- und Handeln-GmbH & Co. KG v. Oberfinanzdirektion Köln, Case C-356/93, [1994] E.C.R. I-2371; GoldStar Europe GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Ludwigshafen, Case C-401 /93, [ 1994] Rec. I-5587.
136 Simark Controls Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1985), 10 T.B.R. 221, 9 C.E.R. 270 (T.B., App. 2278), esp. at 225. See Foxboro Canada Inc. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 384, 12 C.E.R. 118 (T.B., App. 2418), aff’d (1988), 17 C.E.R. 1 (F.C.A.).
137 Home Evangel Books Limited v. DMNRCE, C.Gaz.1977.I.2629 (T.B., App. 1185); Dawn Distributors v. DMNRCE (1982), 8 T.B.R. 338, 4 C.E.R. 409 (T.B., App.1781).
138 Scripture Press v. DMNRCE (1958), 2 T.B.R. 172 (T.B., App. 490). For other appeals interpreting parts of this tariff item, see Thonger Agencies Limited v. DMNRCE (1950), 1 T.B.R. 34 (T.B., App. 213) — technical business manual not covered; Leland Publishing Co. Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1957), 2 T.B.R. 16 (T.B., App. 397), aff’d (1958) 2 T.B.R. 17 (Ex.Ct.) — encyclopedias not covered; McClelland & Stewart Limited v. DMNRCE, CGaz.1977J.3286 (T.B., App. 1180) — history book not covered; A la Tricoteuse Inc. v. DMNRCE, CGaz.1979.L679, (T.B., App. 1332) — macramé instruction book not covered; RCA Limited v. DMNRCE (1979), 6 T.B.R. 824, 1 C.E.R. 154 (T.B., App. 1307) — technical servicing manual not covered. See also PTL Television Network of Canada v. DMNRCE (1982), 8 T.B.R. 389, 5 C.E.R. 25 (T.B., App. 1814), for an appeal concerning a comparable end user item: “[F]or the use of any society or institution incorporated or established solely for religious, educational, scientific or literary purposes.”
139 Oppenheimer Bros. & Company v. DMNRCE ( 1957), 2. T.B.R. 21 (T.B., App.398), aff’d (sub nom Javex Co. v. Oppenheimer Bros. & Co.) (1959), 2 T.B.R. 28 (Ex.Ct.), aff’d [1961] S.C.R. 170, (1961) 2 T.B.R. 35, 26 D.L.R. (2d) 523. The company advertising was presented to show what the product was supposed to do in ordinary household use.
140 Lindsay, Thomas and Lindsay, Bruce Outline of Customs in Canada, 6th edition (Vancouver: Erin Publishers, 1985) at 13.Google Scholar
141 Great Canadian Oil Sands Supply Limited v. DMNRCE ( 1975), 6 T.B.R. 116 (T.B., App. 1051), rev'd [1976] 2 F.C. 281, 6 T.B.R. 160 (F.C.A.). See further Great Canadian Oil Sands Supply Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1979), 6 T.B.R. 915, 1 C.E.R. 239 (T.B., App. 1386), rev’d. DMNRCE v. Suncor Inc. (formerly Great Canadian Oil Sands) (1981), 3 C.E.R. 340 (F.C.A.), reheard (1982), 8 T.B.R. 116, 4 C.E.R.83 (T.B., App. 1386).
142 Great Canadian Oil Sands Supply T.B.R., supra note 141 at 165-66, quoting Tariff Board dissent at 151.
143 Ibid. at 138.
144 Ibid. at 140.
145 Ibid. at 147–48.
146 Ibid. at 164.
147 See General Supply Co. of Canada v. DMNRCE, [1954] Ex.C.R. 340 at 347, 1 T.B.R. 81 at 85 (Ex.Ct.); Super Electric Supply Co. v. DMNRCE (1970), aGaz.1970J.2850 (T.B., App. 947); Canadian Reynolds Metals Co. v. DMNRCE (1972), CGaz.1972J.1067 (T.B., App. 851); DMNRCE v. Ferguson Industries Ltd. (1972), 4 T.B.R. 368 (S.C.C.), rev’g (1970), 4 T.B.R. 357 (Ex.Ct.), aff’g (1969), 4 T.B.R. 344 (T.B., App. 911 ) — reheard (1973), 4 T.B.R. 379 (T.B., App. 911 ); Applied Electronics Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1988), 13 T.B.R. 98, 16 C.E.R. 60 (T.B., App. 2661).
148 Pharmacia (Canada) Limited v. DMNRCE (1976), 6 T.B.R. 403 (T.B., Apps. 1164, 1165); Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. v. DMNRCE ( 1977), CGaz.1978.L829 (T.B., App. 1193); Centrilift Hughes v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 191, 14 C.E.R. 130 App. 2539).
149 Johnson & Johnson Limited v. DMNRCE (1982), 8 T.B.R. 147, 4 C.E.R. 146 (T.B., App. 1653); Redi Garlic Distributors Inc. v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 385, 8 C.E.R. 126 (T.B., App. 2141); Kulka Distributors Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1985), 10 T.B.R. 48, 8 C.E.R. 258 (T.B., App. 2128); Indel-Davis Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 589, 15 C.E.R. 223 (T.B., App. 2775); Applied Electronics Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1988), 13 T.B.R. 98, 16 C.E.R. 60 (T.B., App. 2661).
150 Universal Grinding Wheel v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 194, 6 C.E.R. 236 (T.B., App. 2057), aff’d (1986), 11 C.E.R. 157 (F.C.A.).
151 Coopérative Fédérée de Québec à Montréal v. DMNRCE ( 1984), 9 T.B.R. 381, 8 C.E.R. 121 (T.B., App. 2134), aff’d (1987), 13 C.E.R. 338, 76 N.R. 218 (F.C.A.). See CargillLtd. v. DMNRCE (1990), 3 T.C.T. 2409 (C.I.T.T., AP-2802).
152 The other two judges in the Federal Court of Appeal, Pratte J. and Marceau J., filed separate concurring judgments that did not adopt the economic analysis.
