Date: 20010427
Docket: T-582-00
Neutral Citation: 2001 FCT 393
Between:
ABB ASEA BROWN BOVARI INC.
Applicant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONER, CANADA
CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY
(FORMERLY, THE DEPUTY MINISTER
O F NATIONAL REVENUE)
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
PINARD, J.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review requesting an order pursuant to subsection 18.1(3) of the Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, as amended, quashing that part of a decision of the Commissioner, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (the Commissioner) made on December 19, 1997, purportedly under section 63 of the Customs Act, R.S., 1985, c. 1 (2d Supp.), (the Act) which was found by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (the CITT) on December 21, 1999 not to be a decision under section 63 of the Act.
[2] On May 15, 1995, six different types of goods were imported under the same customs invoice. On September 19, 1995, the applicant filed a request for re-determination of the tariff classification of the transformers, resistors, capacitors, varistors, circuit breakers and insulators pursuant to paragraph 60(1)(b) of the Act. On January 12, 1996, a designated officer issued a decision under subsection 60(3) of the Act granting the applicant's request for re-determination in respect of transformers, varistors, circuit breakers and insulators and denying its request in respect of resistors and capacitors.
[3] On April 3, 1996, the applicant filed a further request for re-determination pursuant to paragraph 63(1)(a) in respect of two categories, electrical resistors and capacitors. It did not request a re-determination of the tariff classification of the transformers, varistors, circuit breakers or insulators.
[4] On December 19, 1997, the Commissioner issued a decision pursuant to subsection 63(3) of the Act wherein he purported to re-determine the tariff classification of the goods in all six categories of goods, treating them as a single functional unit referred to as a series capacitor system.
[5] The applicant disagreed with the Commissioner's decision and on March 10, 1998, pursuant to section 67 of the Act, it appealed that decision to the CITT. On December 21, 1999, the CITT issued its decision on the appeal and ruled that certain elements of the Commissioner's decision were not decisions under section 63 of the Act and that the appeal in respect of those elements of the decision was not properly before it.
[6] The relevant provisions of the Act, as they then were, read as follows:
58. (1) An officer may determine the tariff classification . . . of imported goods at any time before or within thirty days after they are accounted for . . .
58. (1) L'agent peut intervenir, soit avant, soit dans les trente jours suivant leur déclaration en détail . . ., pour effectuer le classement tarifaire . . . des marchandises importées.
[. . .]
(5) Where an officer does not make a determination . . . under subsection (1) in respect of goods, a determination of the tariff classification . . . of the goods shall, for the purposes of sections 60, 61 and 63, be deemed to have been made thirty days after the time the goods were accounted for . . . in accordance with any representations made at that time in respect of the tariff classification . . . by the person accounting for the goods.
[. . .]
[. . .]
(5) À défaut de l'intervention de l'agent prévue par le paragraphe (1), le classement tarifaire . . . [est] considéré, pour l'application des articles 60, 61 et 63, comme ayant été fait trente jours après la date de la déclaration en détail . . ., selon les énonciations que celle-ci comporte à cet égard.
[. . .]
63. (1) Any person may,
(a) within ninety days after the time he was given notice of a decision under section 60 or 61, or
(b) where the Minister deems it advisable, within two years after the time a determination or appraisal was made under section 58,
request a further re-determination of the tariff classification . . . re-determined or re-appraised under section 60 or 61.
[. . .]
63. (1) Toute personne peut demander le réexamen de la révision :
a) dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant l'avis de la décision prise en vertu de l'article 60 ou 61;
b) si le ministre l'estime souhaitable, dans les deux ans suivant le classement ou l'appréciation prévus à l'article 58.
[. . .]
64. The Deputy Minister may re-determine the tariff classification . . . of imported goods
(a) within two years after the time the determination . . . was made under section 58, where the Minister deems it advisable,
64. Le sous ministre peut procéder au réexamen du classement tarifaire . . . des marchandises importées :
a) dans les deux ans suivant le classement . . . prévu à l'article 58, si le ministre l'estime souhaitable;
[7] The parties to this application agree that the re-determination of the tariff classification of the transformers, varistors, circuit breakers and insulators was clearly not requested nor sought by the applicant in its request pursuant to paragraph 63(1)(a) of the Act. In fact, the applicant's request concerned only the re-determination of resistors and capacitors. As such, pursuant to sections 63 and 64, the Commissioner clearly acted beyond its jurisdiction in issuing a re-determination relating to all six goods as a single functional unit, rather than restricting his re-determination to the goods outlined in the applicant's request.
[8] It is well established that in cases where a question "goes to jurisdiction" of the decision-maker, the appropriate standard of review is always that of correctness (see Pushpanathan v. Canada (M.C.I.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, at para. 28). An error on such an issue cannot benefit from any deference.
[9] Consequently, I will allow the judicial review application with respect to the transformers, varistors, circuit breakers and insulators. As this application is not disputed, there will be no adjudication of costs.
JUDGE
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
April 27, 2001