CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Customs Tariff
Judicial review of M.N.R.’s decision denying applicant’s request for relief from payment of customs duties, taxes (claim for refund, by way of drawback) with respect to textile cuttings resulting from production in Canada of dresses made from imported fabrics—Whether M.N.R. correct in determining leftover textile cuttings could not qualify as “obsolete or surplus goods” within meaning of Customs Tariff, ss. 109, 110 —Application dismissed—Application of well-recognized principles of statutory interpretation: words-in-total-context approach, avoiding absurd consequences—Applying pragmatic, functional approach outlined in Dr. Q v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226, as issue one of statutory interpretation, standard of review that of correctness—Issue whether legislative intent for leftover textile cuttings to fall within meaning of word “goods” in phrase “if goods that result from processing become . . . surplus goods”—Based on distinction made in Customs Tariff, ss. 120-122 between “goods,” “scrap and waste,” leftover textile cuttings “scrap and waste,” not “goods”—Obiter: With respect to Memorandum D7-2-3 on Obsolete and Surplus Goods, ss. 23, 24, provisions thereof not applicable as scrap or waste therein imported as such, whereas fabric herein becoming scrap or waste only in processing—Customs Tariff, S.C. 1997, c. 36, ss. 109, 110, 120, 121, 122.
A & R Dress Co. Inc. v. M.N.R. (T-1374-03, 2005 FC 681, Shore J., order dated 17/5/05, 15 pp.)