A-193-79
Imperial Tobacco, Division of Imasco Division
(Appellant)
v.
Deputy Minister of National Revenue of Customs
and Excise (Respondent)
and
Canadian Textiles Institute (Intervenant)
Court of Appeal, Thurlow C.J., Urie and Ryan
JJ.—Ottawa, March 20, 1980.
Customs and excise — Appeal from decision of Tariff
Board — Whether filter rods are properly classified as "tex-
tile manufactures" — Broader connotation of word "textile"
intended — Customs Tariff R.S.C. 1970, c. C-41, Schedule
A, Item 56300-1.
APPEAL.
COUNSEL:
M. Kaylor for appellant.
E. R. Sojonky for respondent.
J. D. Richard, Q.C. for intervenant.
SOLICITORS:
Gottlieb, Agard, Dupras & Kaylor, Montreal,
for appellant.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
Gowling & Henderson, Ottawa, for interve-
nant.
The following are the reasons for judgment of
the Court delivered orally in English by
THURLOW C.J.: We do not need to hear you
Mr. Sojonky and Mr. Richard. We have not been
persuaded that the majority of the Tariff Board
erred in law in concluding that the filter rods here
in question were properly classified as "textile
manufactures" within the meaning of item
56300-1 of the Customs Tariff R.S.C. 1970, c.
C-41, Schedule A.
In our view there is no common genus and
therefore no basis for the application of the ejus-
dem generis principle to narrow the apparent sense
in which the word "textile" and the expression "all
textile manufactures" are used in the tariff item.
Moreover, the use of both the word "woven" and
the word "textile" in the same item indicates that
these words were not intended to have the same
meaning and in the context it is apparent that the
word "textile" has a broader connotation.
The appeal therefore fails and will be dismissed.
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.