Digests

Decision Information

Decision Content

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Customs Act

Rolls Wood Group (Repairs & Overhauls) Ltd. v. M.N.R.

T-941-99

Hansen J.

11/1/01

16 pp.

Judicial review of Minister's redetermination of tariff classification of turbo-jet engines imported into Canada by applicant in 1997 on basis of Customs Act, s. 61(e)--On January 15, 1999, Donald Barker, in capacity as "Client Services Officer" issued two Detailed Adjustment Statements (DAS) purporting to redetermine tariff classification from (i) January 1 to December 31, 1997 and (ii) from January 1, 1998 to January 15, 1999--Donald Barker held position of "Tariff Values Administrator", and designation as "Client Services Officer" merely identifying where could be reached--Application allowed--Federal Court Act, s. 18.5 precluding judicial review of decision or order of federal board, commission or other tribunal to extent already existing statutory right of appeal--Applicant seeking review by Deputy Minister of redetermination of tariff classification pursuant to Customs Act, s. 63--S. 63 contemplating review of merits of decision made pursuant to s. 61(e), but not of decision-maker's authority--Applicant questions only authority of person who made decision--Question properly subject of judicial review--Appropriate standard of review "correctness"--Authority of designated officer to redetermine tariff classifications pursuant to s. 61 derived from s. 59, permitting any officer designated by Minister to make redeterminations of tariff classifications under ss. 60, 61--Minister designated Compliance Verification Officers for purposes of s. 61 on December 31, 1997--S. 164(1)(a) providing Governor in Council may make regulations authorizing designated officer to exercise powers or perform duties of Minister--S. 164(1)(a) repealed, replaced by Customs Act, s. 2(4) permitting Minister to authorize officer to exercise powers or perform duties of Minister--Object of amendments to give Minister authority to delegate powers, duties specifically conferred on Minister, rather than having to make delegations by regulation--Amendments received Royal Assent on June 18, 1998--December 31, 1997 document designating Compliance Verification Officers to act on Minister's behalf under both Act, amended Act--While Minister could designate officers pursuant to s. 59 for purposes of s. 61, could not delegate those powers, duties specifically conferred on Minister under Act--This could be done only by Governor in Council pursuant to s. 164(1)(a)--Ministerial document predating by six months coming into force of Income Tax Amendment Act, s. 262 which created Customs Act, s. 2(4)--With exception of s. 61(e), each of provisions of Act referred to in December 31, 1997 document and included in Schedule I, specifically authorize Minister to designate officers for stated purposes--S. 61 provided for redetermination of tariff classification within 90 days of release of imported goods and under certain circumstances within two years of release--Although s. 61(b), (c), (e) all provide for redeterminations within two years, additional words "where the Minister deems it advisable" only found in s. 61(e)--Regulations created pursuant to s. 164(1)(a) delegating to certain officers, classes of officers authority to exercise powers, perform duties of Minister of National Revenue under Act--In particular, officers, classes of officers specifically designated for purposes of s. 61(e)--Compliance Verification Officers not included in these regulations--Express reference to Minister in s. 61(e) requiring either Minister or officer designated by Governor in Council by regulation pursuant to s. 164(1)(a) to make redetermination of tariff classification under this subsection--Donald Barker not having authority to issue first DAS on January 15, 1999--Federal Court Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18.5 (as am. by S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 5)--Customs Act, R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 1, ss. 2(4) (as am. by S.C. 1998, c. 19, s. 262), 59, 61(e) (as am. by S.C. 1993, c. 44, s. 92), 63 (as am. idem, s. 94), 164(1)(a) (rep. by S.C. 1998, c. 19, s. 264).

 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.