CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Excise Tax Act
Appeal from Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) decision dismissing plaintiff’s appeal from Minister’s refusal of application for refund of federal sales tax (FST) pursuant to Excise Tax Act, s. 68—In 1992 plaintiff, manufacturer of paper products, seeking reimbursement for period from April 1, 1990 to December 31, 1990 on basis of overpayment of FST on exempt sales of facial tissues—Claim modified in 1999 to request that defendant also consider taxes paid in error in relation to bathroom tissues (rather than in relation to facial tissues only)—Refund allowed with respect to facial tissues but not with respect to bathroom tissues as such tissues not identified in original claim and claim not filed within two‑year statutory limitation period provided in Act, s. 68—CITT dismissing appeal from that decision—Act, s. 68 providing that “[w]here a person . . . has paid any moneys in error . . . an amount equal to the amount of those moneys shall . . . be paid to that person if he applies therefor within two years after the payment of the moneys”—Degree of specificity required to establish content of “paid any moneys in error” not clear on plain, ordinary reading of statute—For two‑year limitation period to operate, moneys paid in error must be reasonably identifiable—Lack of clarity necessitating consideration of other contextual aspects—Interpretation of s. 68 requiring consideration of policy considerations accompanying creation of limitation period—Imposition of limitation period as part of refund process indicating Parliament’s intention there be a degree of certainty in resolution of refund claims—Proper administra-tion of Act also requiring some certainty as to nature, scope of refund claimed—If category of products claimed for left indeterminate, Parliament’s intention in imposing limitation period defeated—Wording of plaintiff’s refund claim insufficient to satisfy statutory requirements for s. 68 refund on bathroom tissue as plaintiff did not identify goods subject of refund report as it was required to do—Appeal dismissed —Excise Tax Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. E‑15, s. 68 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 7, s. 34).
Scott Paper Ltd. v. Canada (T‑1270‑02, 2005 FC 1354, Heneghan J., order dated 3/10/05, 26 pp.)