Ottawa, Ontario, October 25, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Mactavish
BETWEEN:
(carrying on business as Outer Space Sports)
and
CANADA (MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY
AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS)
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness seeks to have the application for judicial review brought by 1099065 Ontario Inc. (carrying on business as Outer Space Sports) (“OSS”) summarily dismissed as being beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. In the alternative, the Minister asks that the Court exercise its discretion and decline to hear the application, as OSS has an adequate alternate remedy available to it under the provisions of the Customs Act.
[2] In the further alternative, in the event that the Minister’s motion is dismissed, the Minister seeks an extension of time for the Canada Border Services Agency to provide the tribunal record.
[3] For the reasons that follow, I am of the view that this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider OSS’ application for judicial review, in light of the comprehensive statutory review scheme established under the Customs Act. As a consequence, the Notice of Application for judicial review will be struck out.
Background
[4] These proceedings have their genesis in a verification audit carried out by the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency in relation to OSS’s importing activities in 2000, when OSS was operating as a designer, importer and distributor of motorcycle apparel.
[5] It appears from the record that based upon the results of this audit, a re-determination was made by a CCRA officer in February of 2002, pursuant to the provisions of section 59 of the Customs Act. This re-determination related to the value for duty of goods imported into Canada by OSS.
[6] At some point in the process, the responsibilities for customs activities were reassigned from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency to the Canada Border Services Agency. As nothing turns on which organization was responsible for this file at any given time, the two organizations will be referred to collectively as “the Agency”.
[7] Not being satisfied with the Agency’s decision, OSS then sought a further re-determination by the President of the Agency, in accordance with the provisions of section 60 of the Customs Act. The further re-determination process is ongoing.
[8] On September 6, 2006, OSS commenced its application in the Federal Court. The Notice of Application describes the application as
… an application for judicial review of the Canadian Border Services Agency decision dated August 16, 2006 issued in the further re-determination proceedings under subsection 60(1) of the Customs Act, R.S. 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.), and subsequent to the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency decision dated February 4, 2002 and Detailed Adjustment Statements dated February 7, 2002 issued in the re-determination proceedings under subsection 59(1) of the Customs Act.
[9] Amongst other things, OSS seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the Agency to set aside the re-determination decision made pursuant to the provisions of section 59 of the Customs Act.
[10] A copy of what I understand to be the Agency’s August 16, 2006 “decision” is contained in the record. This is an e-mail from an Agency officer to counsel for OSS proposing dates for a meeting. The purpose of the meeting is described as being to “review CV sample 65 and match it to the documentation provided with your submission and your latest response.” The officer continues by saying that she “would like to continue with other CV samples as well if time permits”. She goes on to state that “[t]he intent will be to accurately determine the Customs value which will depend on the proper characterization of the role and status of each of the parties to the transaction.”
[11] After proposing a range of potential dates for the meeting, the officer closes by stating “Please look at your schedule and let me know your preference. I will make any necessary arrangements from this end after the date is agreed.”
[12] Counsel for OSS responded by acknowledging receipt of the e-mail, and indicating that he was seeking instructions from his client. The next development in this matter was the issuance of OSS’s Notice of Application for judicial review.
Legislative Regime
[13] In order to address the Minister’s motion, it is necessary to have an understanding of the legislative scheme established for the review of decisions relating to the calculation of duty made pursuant to sections 59 and 60 of the Customs Act. Given that these sections are lengthy, a copy of the relevant provisions is attached as an appendix to these reasons.
[14] Briefly stated, however, these sections provide for two layers of internal review within the Agency, in accordance with section 59 and 60 of the Act. Section 67(1) of the Act then provides a full right of appeal from Agency decisions to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal. Section 68(1) of the Customs Act provides for a further right of appeal from decisions of the CITT to the Federal Court of Appeal on any question of law.
[15] Also worthy of note is subsection 58(3) of the Act, which provides that initial determinations or deemed determinations made by an Agency officer are “not subject to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with, except to the extent and in the manner provided by sections 59 to 61”.
[16] In a similar vein, subsection 59(6) of the Act provides that neither an initial re-determination nor a further re-determination is “subject to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with, except to the extent and in the manner provided by section 59(1) and sections 60 and 61”.
[17] Finally, section 62 of the Act provides that no re-determination or further re-determination made by the President of the Agency is “subject to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with, except to the extent and in the manner provided by section 67”. Section 67 is the section that provides the right of appeal to the CITT.
Analysis
[18] As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that there was some suggestion in OSS’s memorandum of fact and law that the Minister’s motion should be adjourned until after the tribunal record had been produced by the Agency, as it would be unfair to require OSS to respond to the Minister’s motion without first having access to the relevant documentation.
[19] When counsel for OSS was asked to clarify his position on this point at the commencement of the hearing, he advised the Court that he did not wish to see the matter delayed, and that he was content to proceed on the basis of the record that was before the Court. The hearing then proceeded on this basis.
[20] Before addressing the issues identified by the parties, I would further observe that there seems to me to be a real question as to whether there is a “decision”, “order” or “matter” in this case, as those terms are used in section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, that is susceptible to judicial review, even taking into account the broad interpretation of these concepts advocated in cases such as Markevich v. Canada, [1999] F.C.J. No. 250, 3 F.C. 28.
[21] That is, I have trouble understanding how a letter proposing a meeting and suggesting dates would qualify as the sort of administrative action that is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court.
[22] That said, although this issue was alluded to in the submissions of counsel for the Minister, the motion was not argued on this basis, and I will proceed on the assumption that there has indeed been a “decision” made by the Agency.
[23] The test to be used in a motion such as this was established by the Federal Court of Appeal in David Bull Laboratories (Canada) Inc. v. Pharmacia Inc. (C.A.), [1994] F.C.J. No. 1629, 1 F.C. 588. There the Court said that in order for a Notice of Application to be disposed of in a summary fashion, it must be “so clearly improper as to be bereft of any possibility of success.” The Court further noted that “Such cases must be very exceptional and cannot include cases ... where there is simply a debatable issue as to the adequacy of the allegations in the notice of motion.”
[24] Applications for judicial review are intended to be summary proceedings, and applications to strike add greatly to the cost and time required to deal with such matters. As a result, the Federal Court of Appeal determined in David Bull that unless a moving party can meet this very stringent standard, the “direct and proper way to contest an originating notice of motion which the respondent thinks to be without merit is to appear and argue at the hearing of the motion itself.” (See also Addison & Leyen Ltd. v. Canada, [2006] F.C.J. No. 489, 2006 FCA 107, at ¶ 5).
Ouster of Jurisdiction
[25] It appears that the essential nature of the underlying dispute in this case arises under the valuation provisions of the Customs Act, with respect to a determination of the value for duty of goods imported into Canada by OSS.
[26] The first question, then, is whether this Court has jurisdiction to consider OSS’ application for judicial review, in light of the comprehensive statutory review scheme established under the Customs Act.
[27] A similar question confronted Justice Lemieux in Abbott Laboratories, Ltd. v. Canada (Minister of National Revenue) [2004] F.C.J. No. 410, 2004 FC 140. Abbott involved decisions made by the Agency with respect to the originating status of goods brought into Canada. After an initial finding that the goods in question were not entitled to receive preferential treatment, as they did not meet the Rules of Origin requirements established under the North American Free Trade Agreement, Abbott sought a re-determination under subsection 59(1) of the Customs Act.
[28] When it was not successful on the initial re-determination, Abbott then sought a further re-determination in accordance with the provisions of section 60 of the Customs Act. At the same time, Abbott commenced an application for judicial review in this Court.
[29] Before Justice Lemieux, the Minister took the position that judicial review of the section 59 re-determination decision was precluded by section 18.5 of the Federal Courts Act, and by virtue of the fact that the Customs Act provided a comprehensive procedure for challenging decisions of this nature.
[30] Justice Lemieux found that section 18.5 of the Federal Courts Act had no application to the case before him. He was, however, satisfied that this Court did not have jurisdiction to consider Abbott’s application for judicial review, in light of the comprehensive statutory review scheme provided for under the Customs Act.
[31] In coming to this conclusion, Justice Lemieux stated:
¶ 38 … This case may be unique by the presence of three privative clauses in the review structure provided by sections 59 through 68 of the Act. Under those provisions, Ross Le Clair's decisions may be reviewed only through the process of further redetermination by the Commissioner [now the President]. The Commissioner's redetermination is to be set aside or otherwise dealt with only by the CITT and the CITT's decision may be appealed only on a question of law to the Federal Court of Appeal.
¶ 39 I cannot think how Parliament's intention, by enacting this structure, could have been expressed in clearer terms. Parliament wanted the administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial review system to be followed to the exclusion of any other paths of review or appeal. This structure includes bodies with recognized expertise in the subject matter with the Commissioner and the CITT. Moreover, it is the Federal Court of Appeal and not the Federal Court which supervises the CITT in judicial review matters pursuant to paragraph 28(1)(b) of the Federal Court Act.
¶ 40 As I see it, Parliament's clear intention ousts judicial review by the Federal Court under section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act and this intention also removes the necessity for this Court to test whether the prescribed review route provides for an adequate alternative remedy.
¶ 41 I consider this case to be one of those referred to in Brown and Evans, Review of Administrative Action at paragraph 3.6 where it is said the statutory structure may be expressed in such a way that it is exclusive and any discretion to consider the adequacy of that alternative remedy has been removed by statute. (See, Pringle v. Fraser, [1972] S.C.R. 821. See also Chief Justice Dickson's remarks at pages 82 to 92 in Canada (Auditor General) v. Canada (Minister, Energy, Mines and Resources) et al., [1989] 2 S.C.R. 49). [emphasis added]
[32] Counsel for OSS initially suggested that Justice Lemieux’s comments quoted above were mere obiter. I do not agree. The paragraphs quoted above are quite clearly the crux of Justice Lemieux’s decision.
[33] When pressed repeatedly to explain how the Abbott decision could be distinguished from the circumstances of this case, counsel for OSS suggested that the facts in that case were materially different from those in the present case, as Abbott was attempting to proceed simultaneously along two parallel tracks – namely the Customs Act review process and judicial review in the Federal Court.
[34] When it was pointed out that this is exactly what OSS seems to be trying to do in this case, counsel then alluded to “complex administrative law issues” raised by this case, including bias concerns on the part of his client. No explanation of what these issues were was provided by counsel.
[35] When pressed further on this point, counsel for OSS conceded that all of the issues that his client wished to have determined in this case could be addressed through the review process established under the Customs Act. While counsel indicated that there may be some question as to the ability of customs officers to deal with the Charter issues that are allegedly raised by the case, counsel conceded that these issues could ultimately be dealt with by the CITT and the Federal Court of Appeal.
[36] At the end of the day, it seems that the fundamental basis for OSS’ unwillingness to avail itself of the Customs Act review process is its reluctance to go through the various levels of review provided for in the legislation, and its desire to have its issues adjudicated now by the Federal Court.
[37] With respect, a party’s preference as to forum is not sufficient to override the clearly expressed will of Parliament that cases of this nature be determined elsewhere.
[38] As a consequence, I am satisfied that the effect of the comprehensive statutory review scheme provided for under the Customs Act is to deprive this Court of jurisdiction to consider Abbott’s application for judicial review.
Adequate Alternate Remedy
[39] In the event that I am mistaken in finding that the jurisdiction of the Court has been ousted by the review provisions of the Customs Act, I am also satisfied that the review scheme established in section 58 to 68 of that Act provide OSS with an adequate alternate remedy, such that this Court ought to decline to entertain this application for judicial review.
[40] In this regard, I note that in Abbott, Justice Lemieux found that while the appeal route prescribed under the Customs Act might be inconvenient because of the numerous levels of possible appeals, this did not mean that it did not provide an adequate alternate remedy.
[41] Moreover, Justice Lemieux also found that the fact that there might be myriad factual and legal questions involved in a case, perhaps necessitating the assistance of experts, also did not mean that the Customs Act process did not provide an adequate alternate remedy.
[42] Finally, it bears repeating counsel for OSS’ concession that all of the relief that his client is seeking by way of its application for judicial review is available to it through the Customs Act review process.
[43] As a consequence, in the event that this Court does have jurisdiction to entertain OSS’ application for judicial review, I would decline to exercise that jurisdiction on the basis that an adequate alternate remedy is available to OSS under the review provisions of the Customs Act.
Conclusion
[44] For these reasons, an order will go striking OSS’ Notice of Application for Judicial Review, without leave to amend. The Minister shall have his costs of the motion, which I fix at $1,000.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that the Minister’s motion is allowed and OSS’ Notice of Application for Judicial Review is struck, without leave to amend. The Minister shall have costs fixed in the amount of $1,000.
APPENDIX
|
Determination, Re-determination and Further Re-determination of Origin, Tariff Classification and Value for Duty of Imported Goods […]
58. (1) Any officer, or any officer within a class of officers, designated by the President for the purposes of this section, may determine the origin, tariff classification and value for duty of imported goods at or before the time they are accounted for under subsection 32(1), (3) or (5).
(2) If the origin, tariff classification and value for duty of imported goods are not determined under subsection (1), the origin, tariff classification and value for duty of the goods are deemed to be determined, for the purposes of this Act, to be as declared by the person accounting for the goods in the form prescribed under paragraph 32(1)(a). That determination is deemed to be made at the time the goods are accounted for under subsection 32(1), (3) or (5).
(3) A determination made under this section is not subject to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with except to the extent and in the manner provided by sections 59 to 61.
|
Détermination de l’origine, du classement tarifaire et de la valeur en douane des marchandises importées, révision et réexamen
[…]
58. (1) L’agent chargé par le président, individuellement ou au titre de son appartenance à une catégorie d’agents, de l’application du présent article peut déterminer l’origine, le classement tarifaire et la valeur en douane des marchandises importées au plus tard au moment de leur déclaration en détail faite en vertu des paragraphes 32(1), (3) ou (5).
(2) Pour l’application de la présente loi, l’origine, le classement tarifaire et la valeur en douane des marchandises importées qui n’ont pas été déterminés conformément au paragraphe (1) sont considérés comme ayant été déterminés selon les énonciations portées par l’auteur de la déclaration en détail en la forme réglementaire sous le régime de l’alinéa 32(1)a). Cette détermination est réputée avoir été faite au moment de la déclaration en détail faite en vertu des paragraphes 32(1), (3) ou (5).
(3) La détermination faite en vertu du présent article n’est susceptible de restriction, d’interdiction, d’annulation, de rejet ou de toute autre forme d’intervention que dans la mesure et selon les modalités prévues aux articles 59 à 61.
|
|
59. (1) An officer, or any officer within a class of officers, designated by the President for the purposes of this section may
a) in the case of a determination under section 57.01 or 58, re-determine the origin, tariff classification, value for duty or marking determination of any imported goods at any time within
(i) four years after the date of the determination, on the basis of an audit or examination under section 42, a verification under section 42.01 or a verification of origin under section 42.1, or
(ii) four years after the date of the determination, if the Minister considers it advisable to make the re-determination; and
(b) further re-determine the origin, tariff classification or value for duty of imported goods, within four years after the date of the determination or, if the Minister deems it advisable, within such further time as may be prescribed, on the basis of an audit or examination under section 42, a verification under section 42.01 or a verification of origin under section 42.1 that is conducted after the granting of a refund under paragraphs 74(1)(c.1), (c.11), (e), (f) or (g) that is treated by subsection 74(1.1) as a re-determination under paragraph (a) or the making of a correction under section 32.2 that is treated by subsection 32.2(3) as a re-determination under paragraph (a).
(2) An officer who makes a determination under subsection 57.01(1) or 58(1) or a re-determination or further re-determination under subsection (1) shall without delay give notice of the determination, re-determination or further re-determination, including the rationale on which it is made, to the prescribed persons.
(3) Every prescribed person who is given notice of a determination, re-determination or further re-determination under subsection (2) shall, in accordance with that decision,
(a) pay any amount owing, or additional amount owing, as the case may be, as duties in respect of the goods or, if a request is made under section 60, pay that amount or give security satisfactory to the Minister in respect of that amount and any interest owing or that may become owing on that amount; or
(b) be given a refund of any duties, or a refund of any duties and interest paid (other than interest that was paid because duties were not paid when required by subsection 32(5) or section 33), in excess of the duties owing in respect of the goods.
(4) Any amount owing by or to a person under subsection (3) or 66(3) in respect of goods, other than an amount in respect of which security is given, is payable immediately, whether or not a request is made under section 60.
(5) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(a), the amount owing as duties in respect of goods under subsection (3) as a result of a determination made under subsection 58(1) does not include any amount owing as duties in respect of the goods under section 32 or 33.
(6) A re-determination or further re-determination made under this section is not subject to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with except to the extent and in the manner provided by subsection 59(1) and sections 60 and 61.
|
59. (1) L’agent chargé par le président, individuellement ou au titre de son appartenance à une catégorie d’agents, de l’application du présent article peut :
a) dans le cas d’une décision prévue à l’article 57.01 ou d’une détermination prévue à l’article 58, réviser l’origine, le classement tarifaire ou la valeur en douane des marchandises importées, ou procéder à la révision de la décision sur la conformité des marques de ces marchandises, dans les délais suivants :
(i) dans les quatre années suivant la date de la détermination, d’après les résultats de la vérification ou de l’examen visé à l’article 42, de la vérification prévue à l’article 42.01 ou de la vérification de l’origine prévue à l’article 42.1,
(ii) dans les quatre années suivant la date de la détermination, si le ministre l’estime indiqué;
b) réexaminer l’origine, le classement tarifaire ou la valeur en douane dans les quatre années suivant la date de la détermination ou, si le ministre l’estime indiqué, dans le délai réglementaire d’après les résultats de la vérification ou de l’examen visé à l’article 42, de la vérification prévue à l’article 42.01 ou de la vérification de l’origine prévue à l’article 42.1 effectuée à la suite soit d’un remboursement accordé en application des alinéas 74(1)c.1), c.11), e), f) ou g) qui est assimilé, conformément au paragraphe 74(1.1), à une révision au titre de l’alinéa a), soit d’une correction effectuée en application de l’article 32.2 qui est assimilée, conformément au paragraphe 32.2(3), à une révision au titre de l’alinéa a).
(2) L’agent qui procède à la décision ou à la détermination en vertu des paragraphes 57.01(1) ou 58(1) respectivement ou à la révision ou au réexamen en vertu du paragraphe (1) donne sans délai avis de ses conclusions, motifs à l’appui, aux personnes visées par règlement.
(3) Les personnes visées par règlement qui ont été avisées de la décision, de la détermination, de la révision ou du réexamen en application du paragraphe (2) doivent, en conformité avec la décision, la détermination, la révision ou le réexamen, selon le cas :
a) soit verser tous droits ou tout complément de droits échus sur les marchandises ou, dans le cas où une demande est présentée en application de l’article 60, soit verser ces droits ou compléments de droits, soit donner la garantie, jugée satisfaisante par le ministre, du versement de ceux-ci et des intérêts échus ou à échoir sur ceux-ci;
b) soit recevoir le remboursement de tout excédent de droits ou de tout excédent de droits et d’intérêts — sauf les intérêts payés en raison du non-paiement de droits dans le délai prévu au paragraphe 32(5) ou à l’article 33 — versé sur les marchandises.
(4) Les sommes qu’une personne doit ou qui lui sont dues en application des paragraphes (3) ou 66(3) sur les marchandises, à l’exception des sommes pour lesquelles une garantie a été donnée, sont à payer sans délai, même si une demande a été présentée en vertu de l’article 60.
(5) Pour l’application de l’alinéa (3)a), le montant de droits dû sur les marchandises en application du paragraphe (3) à la suite de la détermination faite en vertu du paragraphe 58(1) ne comprend pas un montant dû sur celles-ci en application des articles 32 ou 33.
(6) La révision ou le réexamen fait en vertu du présent article ne sont susceptibles de restriction, d’interdiction, d’annulation, de rejet ou de toute autre forme d’intervention que dans la mesure et selon les modalités prévues au paragraphe 59(1) ou aux articles 60 ou 61.
|
|
|
|
|
Re-determination and Further Re-determination by President
60. (1) A person to whom notice is given under subsection 59(2) in respect of goods may, within ninety days after the notice is given, request a re-determination or further re-determination of origin, tariff classification, value for duty or marking. The request may be made only after all amounts owing as duties and interest in respect of the goods are paid or security satisfactory to the Minister is given in respect of the total amount owing.
(2) A person may request a review of an advance ruling made under section 43.1 within ninety days after it is given to the person.
(3) A request under this section must be made to the President in the prescribed form and manner, with the prescribed information.
(4) On receipt of a request under this section, the President shall, without delay,
(a) re-determine or further re-determine the origin, tariff classification or value for duty;
(b) affirm, revise or reverse the advance ruling; or
(c) re-determine or further re-determine the marking determination.
(5) The President shall without delay give notice of a decision made under subsection (4), including the rationale on which the decision is made, to the person who made the request.
60.1 (1) If no request is made under section 60 within the time set out in that section, a person may make an application to the President for an extension of the time within which the request may be made, and the President may extend the time for making the request.
(2) The application must set out the reasons why the request was not made on time.
(3) The application must be made to the President in the prescribed manner and form and contain the prescribed information.
(4) On receipt of an application, the President must, without delay, consider it and notify the person making the application, in writing, of the President’s decision.
(5) If the President grants the application, the request is valid as of the date of the President’s decision.
(6) No application may be granted unless
(a) the application is made within one year after the expiry of the time set out in section 60; and
(b) the person making the application demonstrates that
(i) within the time set out in section 60, the person was unable to act or to give a mandate to act in the person’s name or the person had a bona fide intention to make a request,
(ii) it would be just and equitable to grant the application, and
(iii) the application was made as soon as circumstances permitted.
60.2 (1) A person who has made an application under section 60.1 may apply to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to have the application granted after either
(a) the President has refused the application; or
(b) ninety days have elapsed after the application was made and the President has not notified the person of the President’s decision.
If paragraph (a) applies, the application under this subsection must be made within ninety days after the application is refused.
(2) The application must be made by filing with the President and the Secretary of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal a copy of the application referred to in section 60.1 and, if notice has been given under subsection 60.1(4), a copy of the notice.
(3) The Canadian International Trade Tribunal may dispose of an application by dismissing or granting it and, in granting an application, it may impose any terms that it considers just or order that the request be deemed to be a valid request as of the date of the order.
(4) No application may be granted under this section unless
(a) the application under subsection 60.1(1) was made within one year after the expiry of the time set out in section 60; and
(b) the person making the application demonstrates that
(i) within the time set out in section 60, the person was unable to act or to give a mandate to act in the person’s name or the person had a bona fide intention to make a request,
(ii) it would be just and equitable to grant the application, and
(iii) the application was made as soon as circumstances permitted.
|
Révision ou réexamen par le président
60. (1) Toute personne avisée en application du paragraphe 59(2) peut, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la notification de l’avis et après avoir versé tous droits et intérêts dus sur des marchandises ou avoir donné la garantie, jugée satisfaisante par le ministre, du versement du montant de ces droits et intérêts, demander la révision ou le réexamen de l’origine, du classement tarifaire ou de la valeur en douane, ou d’une décision sur la conformité des marques.
(2) Toute personne qui a reçu une décision anticipée prise en application de l’article 43.1 peut, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la notification de la décision anticipée, en demander la révision.
(3) La demande prévue au présent article est présentée au président en la forme et selon les modalités réglementaires et avec les renseignements réglementaires.
(4) Sur réception de la demande prévue au présent article, le président procède sans délai à l’une des interventions suivantes :
a) la révision ou le réexamen de l’origine, du classement tarifaire ou de la valeur en douane;
b) la confirmation, la modification ou l’annulation de la décision anticipée;
c) la révision ou le réexamen de la décision sur la conformité des marques.
(5) Le président donne avis au demandeur, sans délai, de la décision qu’il a prise en application du paragraphe (4), motifs à l’appui.
60.1 (1) La personne qui n’a pas présenté la demande visée à l’article 60 dans le délai qui y est prévu peut demander au président une prorogation du délai, le président étant autorisé à faire droit à la demande.
(2) La demande de prorogation énonce les raisons pour lesquelles la demande de révision ou de réexamen n’a pas été présentée dans le délai prévu.
(3) La demande de prorogation est envoyée au président selon les modalités réglementaires et avec les renseignements réglementaires.
(4) Sur réception de la demande de prorogation, le président l’examine sans délai et avise par écrit la personne de sa décision.
(5) Si le président fait droit à la demande de prorogation, la demande de révision ou de réexamen est réputée valide à compter de la date de la décision.
(6) Il n’est fait droit à la demande de prorogation que si les conditions suivantes sont réunies :
a) la demande est présentée dans l’année suivant l’expiration du délai prévu à l’article 60;
b) l’auteur de la demande établit ce qui suit :
(i) au cours du délai prévu à l’article 60, il n’a pu ni agir ni mandater quelqu’un pour agir en son nom, ou il avait véritablement l’intention de présenter une demande de révision ou de réexamen,
(ii) il serait juste et équitable de faire droit à la demande de prorogation,
(iii) la demande a été présentée dès que possible.
60.2 (1) La personne qui a présenté une demande de prorogation en vertu de l’article 60.1 peut demander au Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur d’y faire droit :
a) soit après le rejet de la demande par le président;
b) soit à l’expiration d’un délai de quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la présentation de la demande, si le président ne l’a pas avisée de sa décision.
La demande fondée sur l’alinéa a) est présentée dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant le rejet de la demande.
(2) La demande se fait par dépôt, auprès du président et du secrétaire du Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur, d’une copie de la demande de prorogation visée à l’article 60.1 et, si un avis a été donné en application du paragraphe 60.1(4), d’une copie de l’avis.
(3) Le Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur peut rejeter la demande ou y faire droit. Dans ce dernier cas, il peut imposer les conditions qu’il estime justes ou ordonner que la demande de révision ou de réexamen soit réputée valide à compter de la date de l’ordonnance.
(4) Il n’est fait droit à la demande que si les conditions suivantes sont réunies :
a) la demande de prorogation visée au paragraphe 60.1(1) a été présentée dans l’année suivant l’expiration du délai prévu à l’article 60;
b) l’auteur de la demande établit ce qui suit :
(i) au cours du délai prévu à l’article 60, il n’a pu ni agir ni mandater quelqu’un pour agir en son nom, ou il avait véritablement l’intention de présenter une demande de révision ou de réexamen,
(ii) il serait juste et équitable de faire droit à la demande,
(iii) la demande a été présentée dès que possible.
|
|
61. (1) The President may
(a) re-determine or further re-determine the origin, tariff classification or value for duty of imported goods
(i) at any time after a re-determination or further re-determination is made under paragraph 60(4)(a), but before an appeal is heard under section 67, on the recommendation of the Attorney General of Canada, if the re-determination or further re-determination would reduce duties payable on the goods,
(ii) at any time, if the person who accounted for the goods under subsection 32(1), (3) or (5) fails to comply with any provision of this Act or the regulations or commits an offence under this Act in respect of the goods, and
(iii) at any time, if the re-determination or further re-determination would give effect to a decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada made in respect of the goods;
(b) re-determine or further re-determine the marking determination of imported goods
(i) within four years after the date the determination was made under section 57.01, if the Minister considers it advisable to make the re-determination,
(ii) at any time, if the person who is given notice of a marking determination under section 57.01 or of a re-determination under paragraph 59(1)(a) fails to comply with any provision of this Act or the regulations or commits an offence under this Act in respect of the goods,
(iii) at any time, if the re-determination or further re-determination would give effect to a decision made in respect of the goods by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada, and
(iv) at any time after a re-determination is made under paragraph 60(4)(c), but before an appeal is heard under section 67, on the recommendation of the Attorney General of Canada; and
(c) re-determine or further re-determine the origin, tariff classification or value for duty of imported goods (in this paragraph referred to as the “subsequent goods”), at any time, if the re-determination or further re-determination would give effect, in respect of the subsequent goods, to a decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the Federal Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada, or of the President under subparagraph (a)(i),
(i) that relates to the origin or tariff classification of other like goods imported by the same importer or owner on or before the date of importation of the subsequent goods, or
(ii) that relates to the manner of determining the value for duty of other goods previously imported by the same importer or owner on or before the date of importation of the subsequent goods.
(2) If the President makes a re-determination or further re-determination under this section, the President shall without delay give notice of that decision, including the rationale on which the decision is made, to the prescribed persons.
|
61. (1) Le président peut procéder :
a) à la révision ou au réexamen de l’origine, du classement tarifaire ou de la valeur en douane des marchandises importées :
(i) à tout moment après la révision ou le réexamen visé à l’alinéa 60(4)a), mais avant l’audition de l’appel prévu à l’article 67, sur recommandation du procureur général du Canada, dans les cas où la révision ou le réexamen réduirait les droits exigibles sur les marchandises,
(ii) à tout moment, si la personne qui a déclaré en détail les marchandises en cause, en application des paragraphes 32(1), (3) ou (5), ne s’est pas conformée à la présente loi ou à ses règlements, ou a enfreint les dispositions de la présente loi applicables aux marchandises,
(iii) à tout moment, dans le cas où la révision ou le réexamen donnerait effet à une décision du Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur, de la Cour d’appel fédérale ou de la Cour suprême du Canada rendue au sujet des marchandises;
b) à la révision ou au réexamen de la décision sur la conformité des marques des marchandises importées :
(i) dans les quatre années suivant la date de la prise de la décision en vertu de l’article 57.01, si le ministre l’estime indiqué,
(ii) à tout moment, si le destinataire de l’avis de la décision prise sur la conformité des marques en application de l’article 57.01 ou d’une révision faite en vertu de l’alinéa 59(1)a) ne s’est pas conformé à la présente loi ou à ses règlements, ou a enfreint les dispositions de la présente loi applicables aux marchandises,
(iii) à tout moment, dans le cas où la révision ou le réexamen donnerait effet à une décision du Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur, de la Cour d’appel fédérale ou de la Cour suprême du Canada rendue au sujet des marchandises,
(iv) à tout moment après la révision visée à l’alinéa 60(4)c), mais avant l’audition de l’appel prévu à l’article 67, sur recommandation du procureur général du Canada;
c) à la révision ou au réexamen de l’origine, du classement tarifaire ou de la valeur en douane des marchandises importées, à tout moment, dans le cas où la révision ou le réexamen donnerait effet, pour ce qui est des marchandises en cause, à une décision du Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur, de la Cour d’appel fédérale ou de la Cour suprême du Canada, ou du président en application du sous-alinéa a)(i) :
(i) qui porte sur l’origine ou le classement tarifaire d’autres marchandises semblables importées par le même importateur ou propriétaire le jour de l’importation des marchandises en cause ou antérieurement,
(ii) qui porte sur le mode de détermination de la valeur en douane d’autres marchandises importées par le même importateur ou propriétaire le jour de l’importation des marchandises en cause ou antérieurement.
(2) Le président qui procède à une révision ou à un réexamen en application du présent article donne sans délai avis de sa décision, motifs à l’appui, aux personnes visées par règlement. |
|
62. A re-determination or further re-determination under section 60 or 61 is not subject to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with except to the extent and in the manner provided by section 67.
[…]
|
62. La révision ou le réexamen prévu aux articles 60 ou 61 n’est susceptible de restriction, d’interdiction, d’annulation, de rejet ou de toute autre forme d’intervention que dans la mesure et selon les modalités prévues à l’article 67.
[…] |
|
65. (1) If a re-determination or further re-determination is made under paragraph 60(4)(a) or 61(1)(a) or (c) in respect of goods, such persons who are given notice of the decision as may be prescribed shall, in accordance with the decision,
(a) pay any additional amount owing as duties in respect of the goods or, where an appeal is taken under section 67, give security satisfactory to the Minister in respect of that amount and any interest owing or that may become owing on that amount; or
(b) be given a refund of any duties and interest paid (other than interest that was paid by reason of duties not being paid in accordance with subsection 32(5) or section 33) in excess of the duties and interest owing in respect of the goods.
(2) Any amount owing by or to a person under subsection (1) or 66(3) of this Act or as a result of a determination or re-determination under the Special Import Measures Act in respect of goods, other than an amount in respect of which security is given, is payable immediately, whether or not an appeal is taken under section 67 of this Act or subsection 61(1) of that Act.
|
65. (1) Les personnes visées par règlement qui sont avisées de la décision — révision ou réexamen prévu aux alinéas 60(4)a) ou 61(1)a) ou c) — doivent, selon les termes de la décision :
a) soit verser tout complément de droits dû sur les marchandises ou, si appel a été interjeté en vertu de l’article 67, payer cette somme ou donner la garantie, jugée satisfaisante par le ministre, du versement de ce complément et des intérêts échus ou à échoir sur ce complément;
b) soit recevoir le remboursement de tout excédent de droits et d’intérêts (sauf les intérêts payés en raison du non-paiement de droits dans le délai prévu au paragraphe 32(5) ou à l’article 33) versé sur les marchandises.
(2) Les sommes qu’une personne doit ou qui lui sont dues en application des paragraphes (1) ou 66(3) ou suite à une décision, une révision ou un réexamen faits en vertu de la Loi sur les mesures spéciales d’importation sur des marchandises, à l’exception des sommes pour lesquelles une garantie a été donnée, sont à payer immédiatement, même si appel a été interjeté en vertu de l’article 67 de la présente loi ou du paragraphe 61(1) de cette loi.
|
|
65.1 (1) If a person (in this subsection referred to as the “applicant”) to whom notice of a decision under subsection 59(1) or paragraph 60(4)(a) or 61(1)(a) or (c) was given would be entitled under paragraph 59(3)(b) or 65(1)(b) to a refund of an amount if the applicant had been the person who paid the amount, the amount may be paid to the applicant and any amount so paid to the applicant is deemed to have been refunded to the applicant under that paragraph.
(2) If an amount in respect of goods has been refunded to a person under paragraph 59(3)(b) or 65(1)(b), no other person is entitled to a refund of an amount in respect of the goods under either of those paragraphs.
(3) This section does not apply to a marking determination.
|
65.1 (1) Peut être versé au destinataire d’un avis de décision prévu au paragraphe 59(1) ou aux alinéas 60(4)a) ou 61(1)a) ou c) le montant dont il aurait eu le droit de recevoir le remboursement en vertu des alinéas 59(3)b) ou 65(1)b) s’il avait versé pareil montant. Le cas échéant, le montant est réputé avoir été remboursé au destinataire en application de l’un ou l’autre de ces derniers alinéas.
(2) Les marchandises au titre desquelles un montant a été remboursé en application des alinéas 59(3)b) ou 65(1)b) ne peuvent faire l’objet d’un autre remboursement en vertu de l’un ou l’autre de ces alinéas.
(3) Le présent article ne s’applique pas aux décisions qui portent sur la conformité des marques.
|
|
66. (1) If the amount paid by a person on account of duties expected to be owing under paragraph 59(3)(a) or 65(1)(a) of this Act or under the Special Import Measures Act exceeds the amount of duties, if any, owing as a result of a determination, re-determination or further re-determination, the person shall be paid, in addition to the excess amount, interest at the prescribed rate for the period beginning on the first day after the day the amount was paid and ending on the day the determination, re-determination or further re-determination, as the case may be, was made, calculated on the excess amount.
(2) If, as a result of a determination, re-determination or further re-determination made in respect of goods, a person is required under paragraph 59(3)(a) or 65(1)(a) to pay an amount owing as duties in respect of the goods and the person gives security under that paragraph pending a subsequent re-determination or further re-determination in respect of the goods, the interest payable under subsection 33.4(1) on any amount owing as a result of the subsequent re-determination or further re-determination is to be computed at the prescribed rate for the period beginning on the first day after the day the security was given and ending on the day the subsequent re-determination or further re-determination is made.
(3) A person who is given a refund under paragraph 59(3)(b) or 65(1)(b) of this Act or under the Special Import Measures Act of an amount paid shall be given, in addition to the refund, interest at the prescribed rate for the period beginning on the first day after the day the amount was paid and ending on the day the refund is given, calculated on the amount of the refund.
|
66. (1) La personne qui verse, au titre des droits qu’elle s’attend à devoir payer en application des alinéas 59(3)a) ou 65(1)a) de la présente loi ou en application de la Loi sur les mesures spéciales d’importation, une somme qui excède les droits dus par suite d’une intervention — détermination, révision ou réexamen — reçoit, en plus de l’excédent, des intérêts au taux réglementaire, calculés sur l’excédent pour la période commençant le lendemain du versement de la somme et se terminant le jour de l’intervention.
(2) Lorsqu’une intervention — détermination, révision ou réexamen — donne lieu à l’obligation d’effectuer les versements prévus aux alinéas 59(3)a) ou 65(1)a) et qu’une garantie est donnée en application de ces alinéas en attendant une révision ou un réexamen ultérieur, les intérêts payables en application du paragraphe 33.4(1) sur un montant dû par suite de cette révision ou de ce réexamen ultérieur sont calculés au taux réglementaire pour la période commençant le lendemain du jour où la garantie est donnée et se terminant le jour de la révision ou du réexamen ultérieur.
(3) Quiconque reçoit un remboursement en vertu des alinéas 59(3)b) ou 65(1)b) de la présente loi ou en vertu de la Loi sur les mesures spéciales d’importation reçoit, en plus du remboursement, des intérêts au taux réglementaire, calculés sur les excédents pour la période commençant le lendemain du versement des excédents et se terminant le jour de leur remboursement. |
|
Appeals and References |
Appels et recours
|
|
67. (1) A person aggrieved by a decision of the President made under section 60 or 61 may appeal from the decision to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal by filing a notice of appeal in writing with the President and the Secretary of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal within ninety days after the time notice of the decision was given.
(2) Before making a decision under this section, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal shall provide for a hearing and shall publish a notice thereof in the Canada Gazette at least twenty-one days prior to the day of the hearing, and any person who, on or before the day of the hearing, enters an appearance with the Secretary of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal may be heard on the appeal.
(3) On an appeal under subsection (1), the Canadian International Trade Tribunal may make such order, finding or declaration as the nature of the matter may require, and an order, finding or declaration made under this section is not subject to review or to be restrained, prohibited, removed, set aside or otherwise dealt with except to the extent and in the manner provided by section 68.
|
67. (1) Toute personne qui s’estime lésée par une décision du président rendue conformément aux articles 60 ou 61 peut en interjeter appel devant le Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur en déposant par écrit un avis d’appel auprès du président et du secrétaire de ce Tribunal dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la notification de l’avis de décision.
(2) Avant de se prononcer sur l’appel prévu par le présent article, le Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur tient une audience sur préavis d’au moins vingt et un jours publié dans la Gazette du Canada, et toute personne peut être entendue à l’appel si, au plus tard le jour de l’audience, elle a remis un acte de comparution au secrétaire de ce Tribunal.
(3) Le Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur peut statuer sur l’appel prévu au paragraphe (1), selon la nature de l’espèce, par ordonnance, constatation ou déclaration, celles-ci n’étant susceptibles de recours, de restriction, d’interdiction, d’annulation, de rejet ou de toute autre forme d’intervention que dans la mesure et selon les modalités prévues à l’article 68.
|
|
67.1 (1) If no notice of appeal has been filed within the time set out in section 67, a person may make an application to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal for an order extending the time within which a notice of appeal may be filed, and the Tribunal may make an order extending the time for appealing and may impose any terms that it considers just.
(2) The application must set out the reasons why the notice of appeal was not filed on time.
(3) The application must be made by filing with the President and the Secretary of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal the application accompanied by the notice of appeal.
(4) No order may be made under this section unless
(a) the application is made within one year after the expiry of the time set out in section 67; and
(b) the person making the application demonstrates that
(i) within the time set out in section 67 for appealing, the person was unable to act or to give a mandate to act in the person’s name or the person had a bona fide intention to appeal,
(ii) it would be just and equitable to grant the application, (iii) the application was made as soon as circumstances permitted, and
(iv) there are reasonable grounds for the appeal. |
67.1 (1) La personne qui n’a pas interjeté appel dans le délai prévu à l’article 67 peut présenter au Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur une demande de prorogation du délai pour interjeter appel. Le tribunal peut faire droit à la demande et imposer les conditions qu’il estime justes.
(2) La demande de prorogation énonce les raisons pour lesquelles l’avis d’appel n’a pas été déposé dans le délai prévu.
(3) La demande de prorogation se fait par dépôt, auprès du président et du secrétaire du Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur, de la demande et de l’avis d’appel.
(4) Il n’est fait droit à la demande de prorogation que si les conditions suivantes sont réunies :
a) la demande est présentée dans l’année suivant l’expiration du délai d’appel prévu à l’article 67;
b) l’auteur de la demande établit ce qui suit :
(i) au cours du délai d’appel prévu à l’article 67, il n’a pu ni agir ni mandater quelqu’un pour agir en son nom, ou il avait véritablement l’intention d’interjeter appel,
(ii) il serait juste et équitable de faire droit à la demande, (iii) la demande a été présentée dès que possible,
(iv) l’appel est fondé sur des motifs raisonnables.
|
|
68. (1) Any of the parties to an appeal under section 67, namely,
(a) the person who appealed,
(b) the President, or
(c) any person who entered an appearance in accordance with subsection 67(2),
may, within ninety days after the date a decision is made under section 67, appeal therefrom to the Federal Court of Appeal on any question of law.
(2) The Federal Court of Appeal may dispose of an appeal by making such order or finding as the nature of the matter may require or by referring the matter back to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal for re-hearing.
|
68. (1) La décision sur l’appel prévu à l’article 67 est, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la date où elle est rendue, susceptible de recours devant la Cour d’appel fédérale sur tout point de droit, de la part de toute partie à l’appel, à savoir :
a) l’appelant;
b) le président;
c) quiconque a remis l’acte de comparution visé au paragraphe 67(2).
(2) La Cour d’appel fédérale peut statuer sur le recours, selon la nature de l’espèce, par ordonnance ou constatation, ou renvoyer l’affaire au Tribunal canadien du commerce extérieur pour une nouvelle audience. |
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1605-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: 1099065 ONTARIO INC. (carrying on business as Outer Space Sports) v.
CANADA (MINISTER OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS)
DATE OF HEARING: October 17, 2006
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: Mactavish J.
DATED: October 25, 2006
APPEARANCES BY:
Mr. Derek Rasmussen FOR THE MOVING PARTY
Mr. Jeffrey D. Jenkins FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE MOVING PARTY
Jenkins Law
Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT