VOL. 1.1 373 • QUEEN (THE) v. GRINNELL. [E.o.] 1887 Customs duties—Article imported in parts—Rate of duty—Scrap brass-46 June 11. Vic. c. 12, e. 153—Subsequent legislation, effect of—Statutory declara- tion. [s.c.] 1888 G., manufacturer of an "Automatic Sprinkler," a patented brass device Dec 4. composed of several parts, was desirous of importing the same ' into Canada, with the intention of putting the parts together there and putting the completed articles on the market. He interviewed the appraiser of hardware at Montreal, explained tq, him the device and its use, and was told that it should pay duty as a manufacture of brass. He imported à number of sprinklers in parts, paying duty on the several parts instead of on the completed article, although they required but trifling work and expense to • be, made ready for the market. The Customs officials thereupon caused the same to be seized, and an information to be laid against him for smuggling, evasion of payment of duties, undervaluation, and knowingly keeping and sell ng goods illegally imported, under secs. 153 and 155 of the Customs Act of 1883. Held, (per Gwynne, J. in the Exchequer Court) that the entry of the sprinklers for duty, in pieces, was an evasion of the Customs Act of 1883, and that they should have been entered at the price of the
274 APPE1 DIX. [VOL. T. 1888 patented invention in the United States where they were manu- tlat b f e ac i t n ur g e d t , heir proper market value for duty when VfRTNNELL v. imported into Canada. THE QuEEN.Un appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada,— Held, (revers'ng the judgment of the Exchequer Court) (1), that there was no importation of sprinklers as completed articles by G., and the act not imposing a duty on parts of a manufactured article, the information should be dismissed. (2) That the subsequent passage of an act (48-49 Vic., c. 61, s. 11 sub-sec. 2, reenacted by R. S. C. c. 32, s. 61 sub-sec. 2), imposing a duty on the component parts of a manufactured article was an implied legislative declaration that such did not previously exist. See Can. S. C. R., vol. XVI., p. 119.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.