CUSTOMS AND EXCISE |
Customs Tariff |
Svedala Industries Canada Inc. v. M.N.R.
T-949-01
2002 FCT 1314, Campbell J.
20/12/02
13 pp.
For past nine years, applicant has contested decision terminating remission of customs duties granted under Machinery Program of Customs Tariff (Act)--Last year, MNR essentially confirmed decision--Present application challenging confirmation of decision by MNR--Applicant manufacturing, exporting CA 301D vibratory compactor-- Relevant decision for purposes of present application contained in MNR's letter of May 1, 2001--Applicant initially granted relief for term of 1990-1995, but in November 1993, pursuant to Act, s. 76(3), remission terminated-- Termination based on evidence of production capacity of Canadian firm BNR subsequently acquired by firm Champion --Whether Act, s. 75(3) requiring production in Canada by Champion of vibratory compactor reasonably equivalent to CA 301D in order for Minister to form opinion that reasonably equivalent vibratory compactor available in Canada--Regarding correct interpretation of Act, s. 76(3), evidence must be available on two criteria in s. 75(3) in order to make substantiated argument as to existence of production capacity--MNR required to have regard to evidence and arguments, including any expert evidence available, in forming opinion under s. 76(1) or (3)--Reasonably equivalent machine need not to be produced and available in order for opinion to be formed under s. 76(3)--S. 75(3) indicating eligibility of products for duty remission must be determined in conformity with specified statutory criteria and decision to remit duties left to discretion of MNR--Opinions coined "not available from production in Canada" and "has become available from production in Canada" in s. 76(1) and (3) respectively not based on whether or not equivalent produced or available for sale, simply policy opinions based on knowledge of production potential--Applying "reasonable-ness" standard, question is whether sufficient evidence to substantiate reasonable argument and opinion with respect to criteria in s. 75(3)--S. 76(4) imposing evidentiary standard on applicant attempting to obtain favourable remission from MNR--S. 76(4) is statement of requirement on applicant for remission to produce sufficient evidence to reach reasonable opinion--In present case, Court found ample evidence upon which MNR could come to reasonable opinion--Court found MNR relied on sufficient evidence to come to reasonable opinion--Application dismissed--Customs Tariff, R.S.C., 1985 (3rd supp.), c. 41, ss. 74(1), 75, 76(1).