CUSTOMS AND EXCISE |
Customs Tariff |
Star Choice Television Network Inc. v. Canada (Commissioner, Customs and Revenue)
A-67-03, A-68-03, A-69-03, A-70-03
2004 FCA 153, Strayer and Evans (dissenting) JJ.A.
13/4/04
15 pp.
Appeal, consolidated with three other appeals involving identical issues, from Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) decision classifying integrated receivers/decoders (IRDs) imported by appellant as other colour reception apparatus for television--Appellant markets satellite television reception systems (STRS) which consist of satellite dish, low-noise block converter (LNBF) connected to IRD by coaxial cable, and remote control--Right of appeal limited by Customs Act, s. 68 to question of law--Parties agreed, on such appeal from CITT, standard of review reasonableness-- Considerable deference owed to CITT's expertise in interpretation of Customs Tariff--Per Strayer J.A. (Sexton J.A. concurring): Appellant not demonstrating CITT decision unsupported by any reasons that can stand up to somewhat probing examination--CITT articulated reasons in clear, logical manner and dealt with questions of law in reasoned fashion--CITT's decision partly involved application of definition from technical dictionary of word "reception" to reach conclusion IRP receives signals by wire or cable from LNBF and performs conversion operation rendering signals usable for television--As result, CITT declined to treat IRD as "parts" of or "incomplete" reception apparatus for television--Therefore IRDs classified under tariff item No. 8528.12.99 as other reception apparatuses for television-- Appeals dismissed--Per Evans J.A. (dissenting): Appeals should be allowed--CITT erred in law in classifying subject goods under tariff item No. 8528.12.99 as reception apparatus for television rather than as parts thereof--CITT misappre-hended appellant's expert evidence--Inferred from expert's testimony IRD reception apparatus for television because television signal passes along coaxial cable from LNBF to IRD--In effect, CITT ignored bulk of expert's evidence and seized on answers given in cross-examination--CITT clearly wrong when it reasoned from this evidence LNBF "transmitted" signal and IRD "reception" apparatus, rather than integral part of reception system--CITT's conclusion that both complete STRS and one of its components constitute "reception apparatus for television" surprising--Only commercial function of IRD is as part of STRS--To classify what is commonly regarded as a part in same Customs Tariff item as the whole is, far from intuitive--CITT inferred "transmission" and "reception", in technical television communication sense, had occurred from fact signal was, in non-technical sense, transmitted along cable and received by IRD--This constituted flaw in reasoning or misapprehension of evidence so serious as to render decision unreasonable and erroneous in law--Customs Act, R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 1, s. 68 (as am. by S.C. 1995, c. 41, s. 20; 1999, c. 17, s. 127)--Customs Tariff, S.C. 1997, c. 36, item 8528.12.99.