¹ Customs Tariff, R.S.C. 1985 (3rd Supp.), c. 41 (S.C. 1987, c. 49).

² International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, Can. T.S. 1988, No. 38, done at Brussels June 14, 1983, amended by Protocol of Amendment June 24, 1986, in forcejan, 1, 1988. See Customs Co-operation Council, The International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (Brussels: 1989), Annex C, Annex D.

³ Convention on the Nomenclature for the Classification of Goods in Customs Tariffs (CCCN), signed Dec. 15, 1950, 347 UNTS 127, amended by Protocol of Amendment July 1, 1955, 347 UNTS 143, in force Sept. 11, 1959. The CCCN was called the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature (BTN) until the name was changed in 1974 to avoid confusion with institutions of the European Union. For background on the history of tariff nomenclatures, see: Customs Co-operation Council, The International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, Brussels, 198g; Customs Co-operation Council, The CCC Nomenclature for the Classification of Goods in Customs Tariffs: Its Origins, Characteristic Features, Development and Application, Brussels, 1979; Friedenberg, Howard L., The Development of a Uniform International Tariff Nomenclature from 1853 to 1967, with Emphasis on the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature, TC Publication 237 (Washington: United States Tariff Commission, 1968).Google Scholar

⁴ An additional 35 administrations were using an HS-based tariff: Customs Cooperation Council, Annual Report: The Activities of the Council, July 1991 to June 1992, Bulletin No. 37 at 7, 61–62. Only Malawi had elected in favour of the partial application allowed to developing countries under Art. 4 so that they need not administer all the detailed subheadings. Other contracting parties must apply the HS in its full version, because reservations are prohibited by Art. 18 of the convention.

⁵ The legal notes and general rules for interpretation were implemented as part of Canadian customs legislation. The supplementary sources — explanatory notes and classification opinions — are issued and revised from time to time by the Customs Co-operation Council. Canadian courts are directed to have regard to these two supplementary sources in interpretation: Customs Tariff, R.S.C. 1985 (3rd Supp.), c. 41, s. 11.

⁶ Customs Co-operation Council, The International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, 1989 at 38.

⁷ Howard L. Friedenberg, supra note 3 at 23; Lux, Michael, The Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, Eurostat, undated but probably 1981 at 29.Google Scholar

⁸ Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1690, Book 2, Ch. 8, Para, 9, 46–47 (Chicago: Gateway Edition, 1956).Google Scholar These are sometimes listed as five — size, shape, solidity, numerability, mobility: Long, Marcus, The Spirit of Philosophy, 68 (New York: W.W. Norton, 1953).Google Scholar

⁹ Harrison, Bernard, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language, 16 (London: Macmillan Press, 1979),Google Scholar citing Berlin, Brent and Kay, Paul, Basic Color Terms (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969).Google Scholar See also Gregory, Richard L., Mind in Science, 50 (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1981)Google Scholar; Haas, W., “The Theory of Translation” in Parkinson, G.H.R. (ed.), The Theory of Meaning 86 at 97–98 (London: Oxford University Press, 1968).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Leech, Geoffrey, Semantics, 233–34 (2d ed., Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1981)Google Scholar. The list of eleven comes from Berlin and Kay, supra note 9. Since the publication of Basic Color Terms, Paul Kay apparently has proposed that there are actually only ten, with blue and green classified as one. There have also been suggestions that there are languages with twelve basic colours — including French, which has two terms “brun” and “marron” for what in English is called brown (Leech at 236).

¹¹ The experiments are from Kay, Paul and Kempton, Willett, “What is the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis?” 86 American Anthropologist 65 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar See discussion by Cunningham, Clark D. in “A Tale of Two Clients: Thinking About Law as Language,” 87 Michigan L. Rev. 2459 at 2475ff. (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² Experiments by Eleanor Rosch (Eleanor Heider), discussed in Lakoff, George, “Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts,” 2 Journal of Philosophical Logic 458 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar See further Bowers, Frederick, Linguistic Aspects of Legislative Expression 139 (Vancouver: UBC Press, 1989)Google Scholar

¹³ Lakoff, George, Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar The title of the book comes from a category in Dyirbal, an Aboriginal language of Australia, which provides links quite different from those in western cultures (Lakoff at 92ff.).

¹⁴ Quine, W.V.O., “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” in Quine, , From a Logical Point of View, 20 at 43 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964)Google Scholar (“Any statement can be held true come what may, if we make drastic enough adjustments elsewhere in the system.”). The second dogma was the idea that all meaningful statements can be reduced to terms that refer to immediate experience. See further Waismann, Friedrich, “Verifiability” in Parkinson, G.H.R. (ed.), supra note 9 at 37 (paper first published 1945).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Example from Quine, W.V.O., Word and Object, 29ff. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1960).Google Scholar See further Harrison, supra note 9 at 17–19, 96, 104–26.

¹⁶ Devitt, Michael and Sterelny, Kim, who are in the naturalist school of thought, make fun of this counter-intuitive argument in their text Language and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language, 229 (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1987)Google Scholar: “When the naturalistic philosopher points his finger at reality, the linguistic philosopher discusses the finger.” Anthony D’Amato doesjust that, thoroughly, in “Aspects of Deconstruction: The Failure of the Word ‘Bird,’“84 Nw.U.L.Rev. 536 (1990).

¹⁷ Harrison, supra note 9 at 203.

¹⁸ Foucault, Michel, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences, 15 (New York: Vintage Books, 1973,Google Scholar translation of Les mots et les choses, 1966).

¹⁹ See Dreyfus, Hubert L. and Rabinow, Paul, Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, 19–20 (2d ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983).Google Scholar

²⁰ Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 176–207 (2d ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970)Google Scholar. See Barnes, Barry, “Thomas Kuhn” in Skinner, Quentin (ed.), The Return of Grand Theory in the Human Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) at 83.Google Scholar Feinman, Jay M. discusses legal education as a similar sort of learning process: “Jurisprudence of Classification,” 41 Stan.L.Rev. 661 (1989).Google Scholar

²¹ Zukav, Gary, The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics (New York: Bantam Books, 1979).Google Scholar Note, in particular, the discussion of the wave/particle controversy at 45–66.

²² Campbell, Jeremy, Grammatical Man: Information, Entropy, Language and Life 49 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1982).Google Scholar

²³ “To return to general words, it is plain … that general and universal belong not to the real existence of things; but are the inventions and creatures of the understanding, made by it for its own use, and concern only signs, whether words, or ideas”: Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 1690, Book 3, Chapter 3, para. 11, 145 (Chicago: Gateway Edition, 1956).Google Scholar See the criticism of the jump from this theory to the question of essences, in Harrison, supra note g at 34–37.

²⁴ Bowers, supra note 12 at 141.

²⁵ Leech, supra note 10 at 120. See further: Harrison, supra note 9 at 202–6 (at 206: “The introduction of bean-bags into the extension of ‘chair,’ again, surely has something to do with the fact that ‘chair’ is an artifact term, and so ultimately defined, somehow or other, in terms of function”); Lakoff, supra note 13 at 51, 270.

²⁶ With appreciation to Gordon Irish for this suggestion. See further Bowers, supra note 12 at 148, discussing legislation to regulate emerging technology in transportation and factory production from about 1850 to 1950. He notes that, in statutory interpretation, increased attention was paid to the function of goods, to context, and to technical language.

²⁷ The decisions are mainly from the Tariff Board and from the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, which replaced the Board for tariff classification appeals at the beginning of 1989: Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 47.

²⁸ Accessories Machinery Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1955), 1 T.B.R. 221 (T.B. App. 331), aff’d [1956] Ex. CR. 289, 1 T.B.R. 223, aff’d [1957] S.C.R. 358, 1 T.B.R. 229.

²⁹ Ibid. at 227 (T.B.R.).

³⁰ This was the definition in s. 2 of the previous Customs Tariff Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-54, which was repealed R.S.C. 1985 (3rd Supp.), c. 41. The phrase in French was “non dénommé (η.d.).” For an early application, see Dress Manufacturers Guild of Toronto v. DMNRCE (1949), 1 T.B.R. 2 (T.B. App. 160).

³¹ Pascal Hotel Supplies Inc. v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 116, 6 C.E.R. 179 (T.B. App. 1985). For a similar decision that found souvenir spoons to be “spoons” rather than “electro-plated ware n.o.p.,” see Okanagan Gift & Souvenir v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 82, 7 C.E.R. 4 (T.B. App. 2035). Pascal Hotel was applied in Johnson-Rose Inc. v. DMNRCE (1985), 10 T.B.R. 22, 8 C.E.R. 204 (T.B. App. 2165).

³² Triparlnc. v. DMNRCE (1983), 8 T.B.R. 605, 5 C.E.R. 217 (T.B. App. 1913).

³³ BCL X-Ray Canada Inc. v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 35, 13 C.E.R. 212 (T.B. App. 2530).

³⁴ Okanagan Gift & Souvenir v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 82 at 85, 7 C.E.R. 4 (T.B. App. 2035). See also Commander R.D.C. Sweeney v. DMNRCE (1981), 8 T.B.R. 12, 3 C.E.R. 348 (T.B. App. 1687). For examples under the HS that seem to use a superficial approach to specificity, see: Éditions Panini du Canada Ltée v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 38 (QL) (AP-92-018); Praher Canada Products Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 99 (QL) (AP-92-112).

³⁵ B. L. Marks Sales Co. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 216, 11 C.E.R. 314 (T.B. App. 2199), aff’d 14 C.E.R. 56 (F.C.A.). The Board looked to dictionary definitions and commercial advertising to determine that the goods were in fact better described as confections.

³⁶ Accessories Machinery Ltd., supra note 28.

³⁷ Underwood Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1966), 3 T.B.R. 310 (T.B. App. 831). See also Les Publications Étrangères au Canada v. DMNRCE (1978), C. Gaz. 1978.I.5375 at 5380 (T.B. Apps. 1306, 1320); Thomas J. Lipton Inc. v. DMNRCE (1985), 10 T.B.R. 145, 9 C.E.R. 102 (T.B. App. 2204), in which the majority held herbal teas to be “vegetable materials for use as flavourings, n.o.p.,” rather than under 71100–7 “prepared … beverages … for human consumption,” in part because of the residual nature of the 71100–7 item. In another decision, however, the Tribunal relied on an “n.o.p.” designation to classify goods as parts of semiconductors rather than as “electric apparatus designed for welding, n.o.p.”: Eev Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1991] C.I.T.T. No. 55 (QL) (App. 2372).

³⁸ DMNRCE v. Parke Davis & Co. (1953), [1954] Ex. CR. 1, 1 T.B.R. 12 at 21, aff’g (1949), 1 T.B.R. 10 (T.B. App. 195). See also ETF Tools Ltd v. DMNRCE (1962), 3 T.B.R. 50 (Ex. Ct.); DMNRCE v. First Lady Coiffures Ltd. (1986), 13 C.E.R. 42, 71 N.R. 76 (F.C.A.). For earlier adoption of trade usage in a different procedural setting, see Dominion Bag Co. v. R. (1894), 4 Ex. C.R. 311.

³⁹ Pfizer Co. v. DMNRCE, ( 1971 ), 5 T.B.R. 223 (T.B. App. 963),aff’d [1973] F.C 3, 5 T.B.R. 236 (F.C.A.), rev’d (1975), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 456, 5 T.B.R. 257.

⁴⁰ Ibid. at 261 (T.B.R.).

⁴¹ The decision was also based on questions of onus and the interpretation of bilingual legislation.

⁴² Supra note 39 at 237–38 (T.B.R.).

⁴³ In part, Mr. Justice Pigeon was also giving effect to the presumption that taxing legislation should be interpreted in favour of the taxpayer. As well, it should be noted that the goods had previously been free of duty as chemicals of a kind not produced in Canada. The question was how much the new scheme was intended to change.

⁴⁴ Trimark Athletic Supplies Inc. v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 311,7 C.E.R. 41 (T.B. App. 2121).

⁴⁵ Cavalier Luggage Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 69, 13 C.E.R. 243 (T.B. App. 2573) (pencil cases were not included).

⁴⁶ Greisman & Son (Canada) Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1957), 2 T.B.R. 107 (T.B. App. 439); Midway Industries Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1959), 2 T.B.R. 167 (T.B. App. 486); Neckwear Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1962), 2 T.B.R. 272 (T.B. App. 582). The definitions established in these appeals were followed in Beco Industries Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1980), 7 T.B.R. 220, 2 C.E.R. 318 (T.B. App. 1540); Kate’s Millinery Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1982), 8 T.B.R. 103, 4 C.E.R. 76 (T.B. App. 1660), aff’d F.C.A.,June 13, 1984 (see [1984] 1 EC. 1157).

⁴⁷ B. L. Marks Sales Co. v. DMNRCE ( 1977), C.Gaz. 1977.I.2821 (T.B. App. 1186). For a decision under the HS in which trade and ordinary meanings were in agreement, see Little Bear Organic Foods v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1107 (C.I.T.T, AP-89-214).

⁴⁸ Food Machinery of Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1959), 2 T.B.R. 118 (T.B. App. 443), aff’d (sub nom. Campbell Soup Co. v. DMNRCE) (1960), 2 T.B.R. 120 (Ex. Ct.); Zuccarini v. DMNRCE (1959), 2 T.B.R. 201 (T.B. App. 512 ). See also J. H. Ryder Machinery Co. v. DMNRCE (1952), 1 T.B.R. 66 (T.B. App. 255); A. P. I. Laboratory Products Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1983), 8 T.B.R. 730, 5 C.E.R. 514 (T.B. App. 1948).

⁴⁹ Adams Brands v. DMNRCE (1981), 7 T.B.R. 288, 3 C.E.R. 71 (T.B. Apps. 1485 etc.), rev’d (1984), 7 C.E.R. 153 (F.C.A.), reheard (1984), 9 T.B.R. 280, 7 C.E.R. 7 (T.B. Apps. 1485 etc.). The Federal Court of Appeal did not, however, mean that any human intervention in the production process would disqualify goods from being “natural gums”: Kelco Specialty Colloids Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1985), 10T.B.R. 10, 8 C.E.R. igi (T.B. App. 212g), rev’d (1987), 13 C.E.R. 345 (F.C.A.). For further examples of context overriding common, everyday meaning, see Consolidated Sand and Gravel Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1951), 1 T.B.R. 42 (T.B. App. 2299); I. D. Foods Corp. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 55, 13 C.E.R. 90 (T.B. App. 2526).

⁵⁰ Denbyware Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE, Reasons for Judgment, p. 2 ( 15 May 1979), A-274-78 (RCA.) (also noted 5 C.E.R. 566), affg (1978), 6 T.B.R. 620 (T.B. App. 1304). The Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal the Court of Appeal decision in Denbyware: (1979), 31 N.R. 172. See also Josiah Wedgwood and Sons (Canada) Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1982), 8 T.B.R. 154, 4 C.E.R. 164 (T.B. App. 1634); Anglo-Canadian Mercantile Co. v. DMNRCE (1984), g T.B.R. 345, 7 C.E.R. 116 (T.B. App. 2116).

⁵¹ Tilechem Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1976), CGaz. 1977.I.2810 (T.B. App. 1102).

⁵² Olympia Floor and Wall Tile Co. v. DMNRCE (1982), 8 T.B.R. 31, 4 C.E.R. 10 (T.B. Apps. 1526 etc.).

⁵³ Olympia Fhor and Wall Tile Co. v. DMNRCE (1983), 5 C.E.R. 562 at 575, 49 N.R. 66 (F.C.A.).

⁵⁴ Olympia Floor and Wall Tile Co. v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 169, 6 C.E.R. 218 (T.B. Apps. 1526 etc.); see also Olympia Floor v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 308, 7 C.E.R. 27 (T.B. Apps. 1617 etc.). The appellant was again successful when the Department reclassified further imports of the goods after a slight change in the tariffitem: Olympia Floor and Wall Tile Co. v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 479, 15 C.E.R. 137 (T.B. Apps. 2548, 2642).

⁵⁵ Olympia Floor, supra note 53 at 565.

⁵⁶ Hunt Foods Export Corp. v. DMNRCE, [1970] Ex. CR. 828, 4 T.B.R. 333, rev’g (1969), 4 T.B.R. 328 (T.B. Apps. 907, 908 909). A Tariff Board reference was held as a result of the Exchequer Court decision in this appeal: CGaz. 1975.1.573. For other declarations interpreting the item, see Consumers Foodcrafl Corp. v. DMNRCE (1955), 1 T.B.R. 237 (T.B. App. 343); Les Entreprises Mair Fried Enrg. v. DMNRCE (1978), CGaz. 1979.I.3048 (T.B. App. 1220); Frito-Lay Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1978), 6 T.B.R. 634 (T.B. Apps. 1241 etc.), aff’d (1980), 2 C.E.R. 143 (F.C.A.).

⁵⁷ Beaulieu of Canada Inc. v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 27, 13 C.E.R. 206 (T.B. App. 2386), citing British Steel Canada Inc. v. DMNRCE ( 1984), 9 T.B.R. 240, 7 C.E.R. 230 (T.B. App. 2067). In a decision under the Harmonized System, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal also followed the Court of Appeal judgment in Olympia Floor and opted for trade meaning: Diamant Boari Truco Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1315 (C.I.T.T, AP-90-166).

⁵⁸ See Ocelot Chemicah v. DMNRCE (1985), 10 T.B.R. 286, 10 C.E.R. 208 (T.B. App. 2019); Fisher Scientific Ltd. v. DMNRCE ( 1987), 12 T.B.R. 457, 15 C.E.R. 114 (T.B. App. 2650); Jagenberg of Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1988), 17 C.E.R. 296 (T.B. App. 2686); Cassidy’s Ltd. v. DMNRCE ( 1989), 2 T.C.T. 1043 (C.I.T.T. Apps. 2gi4 etc.); Burroughs Wellcome Inc. v. DMNRCE (1989), 2 T.C.T. 1054 (C.I.T.T. App. 2673); International Cordage Systems Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1989), 2 T.C.T. 1193 (C.I.T.T. App. 3085). For declarations after Denbyware but before Olympia Floor, see Turmac Electronics Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1979), 6 T.B.R. 931, 1 C.E.R. 2g2 (T.B. App. 1401 ); C.J. Rush Ltd. v. DMNRCE, ( 1979), 6 T.B.R. 902, 1 C.E.R. 231 (T.B. App. 1422); Wilson Machine Co. v. DMNRCE (1979), 6 T.B.R. 895, 1 C.E.R. 226 (T.B. App. 1402), which cites the F.C.A. judgment in Pfizer, but not the Supreme Court decision. For a few earlier examples of routine application of trade usage, see J. H. Ryder Machinery Co. v. DMNRCE (1956), 1 T.B.R. 252 (T.B. App. 371); Reference re Tall Oil Fatty Acids (1959), 2 T.B.R. 184 (T.B. App. 497); American-Standard Products (Canada) Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1960), 2 T.B.R. 220 (T.B. App. 529); Industrial Textiles Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1961), 2 T.B.R. 226 (T.B. App. 538); Bomac Electrotype Co. v. DMNRCE (1965), 3 T.B.R. 243 (T.B. App. 785); Beloit Sorel Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1966), 3 T.B.R. 321 (T.B. App. 839). Trade usage also seems to be readily adopted when it has to do with measurement: Anglophoto Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1979), 6 T.B.R. 767, 1 C.E.R. 61 (T.B. App. 1397); Auto Radiator Manufacturing Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1979), 6 T.B.R. 857, 1 C.E.R. 194 (T.B. App. 1424). For decisions under the Harmonized System, see Crosby Valve Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1991), 5 T.C.T. 1003 (C.I.T.T. AP-90-179); Esden Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1078 (C.I.T.T. AP-90-006); MLG Enterprises Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1134 (C.I.T.T. AP-89-170); D. Dyck Industries Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1396 (C.I.T.T. AP-91-157); F. W. Woolworth Co. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 63 (QL) (AP-92-007); Apotex Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 112 (QL) (AP-92-087); Gilmour Sports Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 132 (QL) (AP-92-102, AP-92-354).

⁵⁹ W. J. Elliott & Co. v. DMNRCE (1968), [1969] Ex. C.R. 67, 4 T.B.R. 86; R. v. Planters Nut and Chocolate Co. (1951), 1 T.B.R. 271 (Ex. Ct.).

⁶⁰ Carl Zeiss Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1967), 4 T.B.R. 31 at 37 (T.B. App. 849).

⁶¹ Reference re Dehydrated Grasses (1958), 2 T.B.R. 175 (T.B. App. 493); Cosmos Imperial Mills Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1957), 2 T.B.R. 99 (T.B. App. 421); Sherwin-Williams Co. of Canada v. DMNRCE (1950), 1 T.B.R. 35 (T.B. App. 215).

⁶² Aries Inspection Services Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1980), 7 T.B.R. 18, 2 C.E.R. 25 (T.B. App. 1446); Mine Equipment Co. v. DMNRCE (1970), C.Gaz.1971.I.2829 at 2831 (T.B. App. 948); Mount Bruno Floral Co. v. DMNRCE (1949), 1 T.B.R. 6 (T.B. App. 167).

⁶³ Sefer Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1970), 5 T.B.R. 52 (Ex. Ct.).

⁶⁴ Universal Fur Dressers and Dyers Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1951), 1 T.B.R. 43 (TB. App. 231); Quebec Photo Service Inc. v. DMNRCE (1980), 7 T.B.R. 185, 2 C.E.R. 282 (T.B. App. 1463); Johnson & Johnson Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1982), 8 T.B.R. 147, 4 C.E.R. 146 (T.B. App. 1653).

⁶⁵ Grand Specialties Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1987 ), 12 T.B.R. 60, 13 C.E.R. 233 (T.B. App. 2565).

⁶⁶ Perley-Robertson v. DMNRCE (1962), 2 T.B.R. 274 (T.B. App. 586).

⁶⁷ Dow Chemical of Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1953), 1 T.B.R. 109 (T.B. App. 284). See: Reference … as to Classification of Dehydrated Grasses (1958), 2 T.B.R. 175 (T.B. App. 493); Canadian Titanium v. DMNRCE (1975), C.Gaz. 1976.I.1558 (T.B. App. 1097); Degussa Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 279, 14 C.E.R. 235 (T.B. App. 2545). Note also the declaration in Perky-Robertson v. DMNRCE (1962), 2 T.B.R. 283 (T.B. App. 591), in which the goods were classified as tea even though they did not contain the whole tea leaf. For a decision under the Harmonized System, see Upjohn Inter-American Corp. v. DMNRCE (1992), 5T.C.T. 1052 (C.I.T.T. AP-90-197 and AP-90-146), in which the addition of starch did not disqualify goods from classification as estrogens and progestogens.

⁶⁸ Toronto Refiners and Smelters Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1983), 8 T.B.R. 537, 5 C.E.R. 152 (T.B. App. 1861 ). Goods did not have to be worthless in order to be “waste”: Chud foam Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1963), 3 T.B.R. 54 (T.B. App. 636); Oliver-MacLeod Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1977), C.Gaz. 1978.I.663 (T.B. Apps. 1226, 1227).

⁶⁹ Monarch Mirror Door Co. v. DMNRCE (1980), 7 T.B.R. 13, 2 C.E.R. 19 (T.B. App. 1458).

⁷⁰ Imported Delicacies Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1980), 7 T.B.R. 207, 2 C.E.R. 302 (T.B. App. 1541).

⁷¹ Bic lnc. v. DMNRCE ( 1985), 10 T.B.R. 58, 8 C.E.R. 280 (T.B. App. 2170), aff’d (1987), 13 C.E.R. 277 (F.C.A.).

⁷² Alcock, Downing & Wright Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1958), 2 T.B.R. 158 (T.B. App. 473); Union Carbide Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1964), 3 T.B.R. 69 (T.B. Apps. 652, 769); Cavalier Luggage Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 69, 13 C.E.R. 243 (T.B. App. 2573). Under the item, if the goods had consisted only of the component of chief value and if that component would have been classified at a higher rate of duty, then the higher rate applied. The component of chief value was the component that exceeded in value any other single component.

⁷³ Microsonic Digital Systems Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1985), 10 T.B.R. 210, 9 C.E.R. 259 (T.B. App. 2274). The relative value of components was also mentioned in Monarch Mirror Door Co. v. DMNRCE, supra note 69 at 17 (T.B.R.).

⁷⁴ Waltham Watch Co. of Canada v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 388, 8 C.E.R. 133 (T.B. App. 2117), aff’d (1987), 15 C.E.R. 159 (F.C.A.). See also Jewel Radio Co. of Canada v. DMNRCE (1953), 1 T.B.R. 104 (T.B.); General Instrument v. DMNRCE (1957), 2 T.B.R. 40 (T.B. App. 282).

⁷⁵ Reference on Cotton and Plastic Combination Materiak (1956), 1 T.B.R. 243 at 245–46 (T.B. App. 362).

⁷⁶ Jossal Trading Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1977), C.Gaz. 1978.I.7547 at 7549 (T.B. App. 1243 ). The appellant had been arguing that the goods came under the residual item 71100–1, which would have made the criterion relevant.

⁷⁷ Kelley v. DMNRCE (1985), 10 T.B.R. 70 at 79, 9 C.E.R. 236 (T.B. App. 2082).

⁷⁸ The Board, unfortunately, phrased this as “those essential qualities that gave it its original value”: Ibid, at 78 (T.B.R.).

⁷⁹ Bic lnc. v. DMNRCE (1987), 13 C.E.R. 277 (F.C.A.), aff’g (1985), 10 T.B.R. 58, 8 C.E.R. 280 (T.B. App. 2170). But see Monarch Mirror Door, supra note 69, in which the Board indicated that the track and rollers did not affect classification of mirrored sliding doors, because they were of minimal value and weight relative to the mirrors. Under the Harmonized System, see Canadian Thermos Products Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 4 (QL) (AP-92-015), concerning note 5 to section 15, which adopts the relative weight criterion.

⁸⁰ See, e.g., Sealed Air of Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1982), 8 T.B.R. 208, 4 C.E.R. 235 (T.B. App. 1726), in which the Board was trying to decide whether goods contained more than 50 per cent by weight of polyether polyols. Since it was not possible to analyse after the goods were processed, the Board used the weight of elements before processing. The decision was subsequently reversed by the Federal Court of Appeal, which determined that the criterion relating to weight did not apply to this paragraph of the tariff item: DMNRCE v. Sealed Air of Canada Ltd. (1983), 5 C.E.R. 584 (F.C.A.).

⁸¹ Rema Tip Top Remaco Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1968), 4 T.B.R. 181 (T.B. App. 880).

⁸² A.M. Meincke à Son Inc. v. DMNRCE (1952), 1 T.B.R. 65 (T.B. App. 254).

⁸³ Alcock, Downing & Wright Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1958), 2 T.B.R. 158 (T.B. App. 473). See, contra, Andrew Gilchrist Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1964), 3 T.B.R. 188 (T.B. App. 745), in which the goods were a combination of textile and plastic, but the Board refused to accept the function of the goods as the basis for classification. The Board may have been influenced in Gilchrist by a number of previous appeals that had found similar goods to be coated textiles rather than plastics, based in large part on trade usage. See, e.g., Reference … on Cotton and Plastic Combination Materiak (1956), 1 T.B.R. 243 (T.B. App. 362); Lewis Specialties Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1958), 2 T.B.R. 151 (T.B. App. 469); Wm. Gladstone Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1962), 2 T.B.R. 2g 1 (T.B. App. 596). The Reference was followed in Crown Wallpaper Co. v. DMNRCE (1967), 4 T.B.R. 3 (T.B. App. 825). See further Crown Wallpaper Co. v. DMNRCE (1974), C.Gaz. 1975.1.1589 (T.B. App. 1080); Reed Decorative Products Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1980), 7 T.B.R. 177, 2 C.E.R. 26t (T.B. App. 1375)

⁸⁴ Garant Inc. v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 190, 6 C.E.R. 233 (T.B. App. 2085).

⁸⁵ Reference … regarding … Power Cranes and Shovels (1953), 1 T.B.R. 90 at 94 (T.B. App. 272).

⁸⁶ See, e.g., Garden Research Laboratories Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1964), 3 T.B.R. 225 (T.B. App. 766); Acme Slate and Tile v. DMNRCE (1966), 3 T.B.R. 314 (T.B. App. 835); Chinmei Enterprises Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 542, 13 C.E.R. 53 (T.B. App. 2454).

⁸⁷ Clorox Co. of Canada v. DMNRCE (1977), 6 T.B.R. 544 (T.B. App. 1246). See also Nortesco Inc. v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 164, 6 C.E.R. 211 (T.B. App. 2004), in which goods were manufactures of cork because cork was the most substantial element both by volume and by use.

⁸⁸ DeBell Industries v. DMNRCE (1962), 2 T.B.R. 320 (T.B. App. 635).

⁸⁹ Union Carbide, supra note 72. See also Kenneth Field v. DMNRCE (1985), 10 T.B.R. 39, 8 C.E.R. 252 (T.B. App. 2066), in which the imported goods were classified as manufactures of marble despite having a small quantity of mother-of-pearl.

⁹⁰ Beco Imports Reg’d. v. DMNRCE (1985), 10 T.B.R. 202 at 203, 9 C.E.R. 253 (T.B. App. 2215).

⁹¹ Beaulieu of Canada Inc. v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 27 at 34, 13 C.E.R. 206 (T.B. App. 2386).

⁹² Certain tariff items mentioned the required function. For them, the analysis was done directly without reference to a typical model. See Mannesmann Tube Co. v. DMNRCE (1959), 2 T.B.R. 149 (T.B. App. 467) (“strength-testing machines”); Atlas Asbestos Co. v. DMNRCE (1961), 2 T.B.R. 186 (T.B. App. 498) (“strength-testing machines”); Coming Canada Inc. v. DMNRCE (1982), 8 T.B.R. 188, 4 C.E.R. 214 (T.B. App. 1711) (“high thermal shock resisting glassware”); Montreal Interglass Corp. v. DMNRCE (1982), 8 T.B.R. 283, 4 C.E.R. 365 (T.B. Apps. 1784 etc.) (“high thermal shock resisting glassware”); Canada Printing Inc. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 125, 11 C.E.R. 97 (T.B. App. 2326) (“lubricating oils, composed wholly or in part of petroleum”).

⁹³ Texas Electroniques (Canada Inc.) v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 351, 12 C.E.R. 94 (T.B. App. 2391). See La Cooperative de Croustilles v. DMNRCE (1988), 17 C.E.R. 347 (T.B. App. 2870). Similarly, a labelling machine was not a printing press in Soabar Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 397, 12 C.E.R. 131 (T.B. Apps. 2322 etc.).

⁹⁴ Ontario Outdoor Advertising Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1958), 2 T.B.R. 137 (T.B. App. 448). The relevant time is the time of importation. The goods will be classified according to the functions that they meet at that time: Cytrigen Energy Products 6f Services Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 338, 12 C.E.R. 85 (T.B. App. 2540).

⁹⁵ Weil Dental Supplies Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1967), 4 T.B.R. 41 at 49 (T.B. App. 856). See also Dentists’ Supply Co. of New York v. DMNRCE (1957), 2 T.B.R. 86 (T.B. App. 415), aff’d (1960), 2 T.B.R. 87 (Ex.Ct); University of Manitoba v. DMNRCE (1968), 4 T.B.R. 184 (T.B. App. 882). In a later appeal, Weil Dental was unable to have this definition applied to cotton rolls, since the latter were not seen as “devices” even though they met the required function: Weil Dental Supplies Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1973), CGaz. 1973.1.3049 (T.B. Apps. 1038, 1044).

⁹⁶ Instrumentarium v. DMNRCE (1981), 7 T.B.R. 254, 3 C.E.R. 12 (T.B. App. 1557), which held that this did not cover plastic eye shields used during recovery. See also First Lady Coiffures Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1985), 10 T.B.R. 26, 8 CE.R. 228 (T.B. App. 2126), varied (1986), 13 C.E.R. 42, 71 N.R. 76 (F.C.A.); Sherwood Medical Industries (Canada) Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 520, 13 C.E.R. 30 (T.B. App. 2397); Geo. S. Trudell Co. v. DMNRCE (1988), 13 T.B.R. 239, 16 CE.R. 257 (T.B. App. 2712); M.& S. X-Ray Services Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1989), 2 T.C.T. 1184 (C.I.T.T. App. 3018); M.& S. X-Ray Services Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1121 (C.I.T.T. App. 3058).

⁹⁷ Whiteco v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 94 at 97, 11 C.E.R. 48 (T.B. App. 2252).

⁹⁸ See also Imax Systems Corp. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 460, 12 CE.R. 219 (T.B. App. 2259), in which the Board stated that the end-use tail should not wag the dog to be kennelled in the item (at 471 T.B.R.), but nevertheless looked to end-use factors such as the need for a specialized theatre to decide that the film in question was a moving picture film n.o.p. rather than a news feature or recording of a current event.

⁹⁹ Waltham Watch Co., supra note 74; Magnasonic Inc. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 407, 12 C.E.R. 142 (T.B. App. 2389); Canadian General Electric Co. v. DMNRCE (1988), 13 T.B.R. 15, 15 C.E.R. 345 (T.B. App. 2878). See further futan International Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1988), 13 T.B.R. 68, 16 CE.R. 39 (T.B. Apps. 2626, 2648), aff’d (1989), 2 T.C.T. 4320 (F.C.A.).

¹⁰⁰ Montreal Children’s Hospital v. DMNRCE (1966), 3 T.B.R. 293 (T.B. App. 818); Mansoor Electronics Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 157, 14 C.E.R. 120 (T.B. Apps. 2514, 2515).

¹⁰¹ Tiefenbach Tool àf Handle Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1981), 7 T.B.R. 247 at 25t, 3 C.E.R. 15 (T.B. App. 1553).

¹⁰² Volkswagen Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1972), 5 T.B.R. 322 (T.B. App. 980), aff’d [1973] F.C. 643, 5 T.B.R. 330 (F.C.A.). For other decisions on the functioning of goods, see Cullen Detroit Diesel Allison Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1979), 6 T.B.R. 832, 1 C.E.R. 165 (T.B. App. 1380); ITT Barton Instruments v. DMNRCE (1982), 8 T.B.R. 408, 5 C.E.R. 49 (T.B. App. 1803); Astrographic Industries Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 235, 14 C.E.R. 166 (T.B. App. 2579). For decisions under the Harmonized System, see Esden Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1078 (C.I.T.T., AF-90-006); Callpro Canada Inc. v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1322 (C.I.T.T., AP-91-165); Takara Co. Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 48 (QL) (AP-92-139); F. W. Woolworth Co. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 63 (QL) (AP-92-007, dissenting opinion of Tribunal member Blouin); Weil Co. Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 64 (QL) (AP-92-096); Procedair Industries Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 87 (QL) (AP-92-152); Gilmour Sports Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 132 (QL) (AP-92-102, AP-92-354).

¹⁰³ Philips Electronics Ltd. v. DMNRCE ( 1982), 8 T.B.R. 173,4 C.E.R. 204 (T.B. App. 1719).

¹⁰⁴ Musicstop Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 356 at 362, 12 C.E.R. 97 (T.B. App. 2490). An earlier decision on the electronic data-processing apparatus item had opted in favour of that item because it best reflected the goods’ dual functions as computer games and as timepieces: Waltham Watch Co. of Canada v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 388, 8 C.E.R. 133 (T.B. App. 2117), aff’d (1987), 15 C.E.R. 159 (F.C.A.). For other decisions giving a wide interpretation to the EDP item, see Reference re Electronic Apparatus for Use in the Home (1983), 8 T.B.R. 587, 5 C.E.R. 150 (T.B. App. 1907); General Datacomm Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 78, 7 C.E.R. 1 (T.B. Apps. 1983 etc.); Manitoba Telephone System v. DMNRCE ( 1984), 9 T.B.R. 177, 6 C.E.R. 223 (T.B. App. 2045); Digital Equipment of Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 58, 11 C.E.R. 5 (T.B. App. 2262); Nevco Scoreboard Co. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 342, 12 C.E.R. 88 (T.B. App. 2435), aff’d (1988), 13 C.E.R. 343 (F.C.A.); Par T Golf (Alberta) Ltd. v. DMNRCE ( 1987), 12 T.B.R. 300, 14 C.E.R. 261 (T.B. App. 2670); IBM Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1991), [1992] 1 F.C. 663 (F.C.A.), rev’g ROLM Canada lnc. v. DMNRCE (1988), 17 C.E.R. 264 (T.B. Apps. 2600, 2625); IBM Canada Ltd. (formerly Rolm Canada Inc.) v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 123 (QL) (Apps. 2700, 2701). The item would not apply, however, when goods were more specifically described elsewhere: Foxboro Canada Inc. v. DMNRCE (1986), it T.B.R. 384, 12 C.E.R. 118 (T.B. App. 2418), aff’d (1988), 17 C.E.R. 1 (F.C.A.); IMS International Mailing Systems Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1988), 18 C.E.R. 57 (T.B. Apps. 2612, 2616).

¹⁰⁵ Reference… as to What Criteria Should be Applied in Determining Whether Equipment Should be Classified as an Internal Combustion Tractor (1966), 3 T.B.R. 259 at 270 (T.B. App. 795) (with a list of more extensive criteria). The reference was undertaken after the decision in J.M.E. Fortin Inc. v. DMNRCE (1963), 3 T.B.R. 107 (T.B. App. 700),aff’d (1964), 3 T.B.R. 112 (Ex. Ct.), which found certain heavy forestry machinery to be within the terms of the item.

¹⁰⁶ Mackod’s Lawn Equipment Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1979), 6 T.B.R. 924, 1 C.E.R. 249 (T.B. App. 1431); Rokon Distributors v. DMNRCE ( 1984), 9 T.B.R. 212,7 C.E.R. 155 (T.B. App. 2063).

¹⁰⁷ Massot Nurseries Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1974), C.Gaz. 1975.I.335 (TB. App. 1073); J. R. Macdonald v. DMNRCE, (1980), 7 T.B.R. 156, 2 C.E.R. 228 (T.B. App. 1493).

¹⁰⁸ A snow-grooming machine, for example, was not a tractor in Mont Sutton Inc. v. DMNRCE (1972), C.Gaz. 1972.I.1927 (T.B. App. 983), but was a tractor in Universal Go-Trad Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1981), 7 T.B.R. 392, 3 C.E.R. 23g (T.B. App. 1683), aff’d (1982), 4 C.E.R. 381 (F.C.A.).

¹⁰⁹ Reference … Regarding the Tariff Classification of Certain Self-propelled Lawn Grooming Riding Machines and Related Attachments (1986), 11 T.B.R. 440, 12 C.E.R. 171 (T.B. App. 2294). See also, concerning the issue of whether the tractor and attachment might be classified together as an integrated machine: Canadiana Garden Products Inc. v. DMNRCE (1981), 7 T.B.R. 400, 3 C.E.R. 244 (T.B. Apps. 1761, 1762).

¹¹⁰ Supra note 105.

¹¹¹ Mont Sutton Inc., supra note 108 at 1929 (T.B. App. 983).

¹¹² Massot Nurseries Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1974), CGaz. 1975.I.335 at 338 (T.B. App. 1073).

¹¹³ Universal Go-Tract Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1981), 7 T.B.R. 392 at 399, 3 C.E.R. 239 (T.B. App. 1683),aff’d (1982), 4 C.E.R. 381 (F.C.A.). See also Macleod’s Lawn Equipment Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1979), 6 T.B.R. 924 at 930, 1 C.E.R. 249 (T.B. App. 1431); Rokon Distributors v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 212 at 216, 7 CE.R. 155 (T.B. App. 2063).

¹¹⁴ John Deere Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1988), 13 T.B.R. 33 at 51, 16C.E.R. 22 (T.B. Apps. 2247 etc.). See also Springhouse Trails Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1989), 2 T.C.T. 1235 (C.I.T.T. App. 2954). On procedures, note MTD Products Ltd. v. Tariff Board (1986), 13 CE.R. 123 (F.C.T.D.).

¹¹⁵ John Deere Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1990), 3 T.C.T. 5097 at 5099 (F.C.A.).

¹¹⁶ Beaulieu, supra note 57.

¹¹⁷ Lily Cups v. DMNRCE (1977), 6 T.B.R. 503 at 509 (T.B. App. 1162). See also Delta Printing and Advertising Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1978), CGaz. 1978.1.5369 (T.B. Apps. 1265 etc.).

¹¹⁸ Control Data Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1978), CGaz. 1978.I.5924 at 5927–28 (T.B. App. 1184). See also Rolph-Clarke Stone Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1978), C.Gaz. 1979.I.984 (T.B. App. 1343).

¹¹⁹ See also McCall Pattern v. DMNRCE (1975), C.Gaz.1976.I.2085 (T.B. App. 1093,), which classified dressmakers’ patterns as “manufactures of paper, n.o.p.” rather than under an item for “other printed matter, n.o.p.” Printing was only incidental to the intended use as an outline model for dressmakers. The “manufactures of paper, n.o.p.” item was thus more specific. Under the Harmonized System, see Editions Panini du Canada Liée v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 38 (QL) (AP-92-018). For a decision in which the purpose of the printing made the “printed matter” item more specific, see P.F.Collier & Son Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 285, 14 C.E.R. 239 (T.B. App. 1950), dealing with an educational kit for children.

¹²⁰ Institute for Development Education Through the Arts v. DMNRCE ( 1985), 10 T.B.R. 234, 10 C.E.R. 109 (T.B. App. 2257). See also Field v. DMNRCE (1985), 10 T.B.R. 3g, 8 C.E.R. 252 (T.B. App. 2066), in which classification of an ornamental marble plaque as a table top was similarly rejected, since it clearly was not for use as household furniture.

¹²¹ Reich Bros. Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1961), 2 T.B.R. 273 at 274 (T.B. App. 584).

¹²² For an appeal in which it was decided that toys could also be for adults, see International Games of Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1983), 9 T.B.R. 41, 6 C.E.R. 132 (T.B. App. 2024). The Tariff Board in another appeal stated that the definition of “toy” was “elastic … ranging according to perception from the rich man’s yacht or Ferrari to a baby’s hand-held ratde”: Reference re Classification of Electronic Apparatus (1983), 8 T.B.R. 587 at 588, 5 C.E.R. 150 (T.B. App. 1907). For HS decisions in which purpose was relevant, see Industrial Adhesives, Division of Timminco Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1163 (C.I.T.T., AP-90-075); Nygard International Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 84 ( QL) (AP-92-105).

¹²³ Diversified Research & Sales Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1953), 1 T.B.R. 124 (T.B. App. 287 ); Mansoor Electronics Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 157, 14 C.E.R. 120 (T.B. Apps. 2514, 2515); Ener-Gard Energy Products Inc. v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 531, 15 C.E.R. 180 (T.B. App. 2524).

¹²⁴ Association Montréalaise d’Action Récréative et Culturelle v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 126, 6 C.E.R. 186 (T.B. App. 2048).

¹²⁵ Mrs. Smith’s Pie Co. (Canada) v. DMNRCE (1978), CGaz. 1979.I.688 (T.B. App. 1362). See also Parsons-Steiner Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1950), 1 T.B.R. 32 (T.B. App. 209); Glennie v. DMNRCE (1962), 2 T.B.R. 326 (T.B. App. 679); Pyrotronics Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1980), 7 T.B.R. 55, 2 C.E.R. 78 (T.B. App. 1414). Both Glennie and Pyrotronics cite as authority the Supreme Court of Canada judgment in Javex Co. v. Oppenheimer, [1961] S.C.R. 170, 2 T.B.R. 35, in which Clorox bleach qualified for an end use item covering “preparations … for disinfecting” in the absence of a more specific item relating to the primary function of bleaching.

¹²⁶ Coles Book Stores Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1978), C.Gaz. 1978.I.3948 at 3950 (T.B. App. 1270).

¹²⁷ Publications Étrangères au Canada v. DMNRCE (1978), C.Gaz. 1978.1.5375 (T.B. Apps. 1306, 1320). See also Carlanna International Saks Inc. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 52, 11 C.E.R. 1 (T.B. App. 2122); British Columbia Automobile Association v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 545, 13 C.E.R. 6g (T.B. App. 2464).

¹²⁸ Musicstop Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 356, 12 C.E.R. 97 (T.B. App. 2490). See also: Cockshutt Plow Co. v. DMNRCE (1951), 1 T.B.R. 63 (T.B. App. 252). For HS decisions, see Research Products/Blankenship of Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1080 (C.I.T.T. AP-90-174); Dumex Medical Surgical Products Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1297 (C.I.T.T. AP-91-132).

¹²⁹ Colgate-Palmolive-Peet Co. v. DMNRCE (1950), 1 T.B.R. 34 (T.B. App. 214). See also, concerning the presumed purpose for imported goods: McAinsh & Co. v. DMNRCE (1958), 2 T.B.R. 169 (T.B. App. 487); B. L. Marks Saks Co. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 216, 11 C.E.R. 314 (T.B. App. 2199), aff’d (1987), 14 C.E.R. 56 (F.C.A.). Under the HS, see Outils Royal Took Corp. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 108 (QL) (AP-92–151).

¹³⁰ Ponsen’s Trading Co. v. DMNRCE (1956), 1 T.B.R. 262 (T.B. App. 391); Weil Dental Supplies Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1973), C.Gaz. 1973,I.3049 (T.B. Apps. 1038, 1044); J. R. Macdonald v. DMNRCE (1980), 7 T.B.R. 156, 2 C.E.R. 228 (T.B. App.1493).

¹³¹ C. Itoh & Co. (Canada) v. DMNRCE (1979), 6 T.B.R. 847, 1 C.E.R. 187 (T.B. Apps. 1308 etc.); H. T. Griffin Inc. v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 305, 7 C.E.R. 25 (T.B. App. 2118).

¹³² General Milk Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1979), 6 T.B.R. 876, 1 C.E.R. 206 (T.B. Apps. 1407, 1411 ). See also I.D. Foods Corp. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 559, 13 C.E.R. 90 (T.B. App. 2526); General Milk Canada Inc. v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 256, 14 CE.R. 209 (T.B. Apps. 2457 etc.), aff’d (1988), 18 C.E.R. 161 (F.C.A.).

¹³³ Reference … re Administration of Tariff Item 326e (1954), 1 T.B.R. iga at 193 (T.B. App. 322). See also Terochem Laboratories Ltd. v. DMNRCE ( 1986), 11 T.B.R. 223, 11 C.E.R. 319 (T.B. App. 2401 ); Western Medi-Aid Products Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 229, 11 C.E.R. 326 (T.B. Apps. 2357 etc.); EEV Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1991), 4 T.C.T. 3339 (C.I.T.T. App. 2372).

¹³⁴ Margo Corp. v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 206, 6 C.E.R. 240 (T.B. App. 2064).

¹³⁵ Harold T. Griffin Inc. v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 305 at 307, 7 C.E.R. 25 (T.B. App. 2118). See also Redi Garlic Distributors Inc. v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 385, 8 C.E.R. 126 (T.B. App. 2141); Aliments Tousain Inc. v. DMNRCE (1985), 10 T.B.R. 134, 9 C.E.R. 94 (T.B. Apps. 2135, 2150), rev’d (1988), 16 C.E.R. 351 (F.C.A.), reheard (1988), 18 C.E.R. 185 (T.B. App. 2135).

¹³⁶ Akhurst Machinery Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 181, 14 C.E.R. 98 (T.B. App. 2630); MTI Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1988), 13 T.B.R. 154, 16 C.E.R. 109 (T.B. App. 2776).

¹³⁷ In Atlas Asbestos Co. v. DMNRCE (1961), 2 T.B.R. 186 (T.B. App. 498). In the absence of other evidence, the Board had to look to actual use of the imported goods to see if they were “strength testing machines.”

¹³⁸ Carruthers v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 242, 14 C.E.R. 193 (T.B. App. 2551). See also Cargill Grain Co. v. DMNRCE (1978), CGaz. 1978.I.3954 (T.B. App. 1299); Mitel Corp. v. DMNRCE (1985), to T.B.R. 90, 9 C.E.R. 49 (T.B. App. 2159).

¹³⁹ Wäl Dental Supplies Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1967), 4 T.B.R. 41 (T.B. App. 856). For a decision under the Harmonized System, see Dumex Medical Surgical Products Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1297 (C.I.T.T. AP-91-132).

¹⁴⁰ Kindermann (Canada) Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1962), 2 T.B.R. 310 (T.B. App. 614).

¹⁴¹ Aries Inspection Services Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1980), 7 T.B.R. 18, 2 C.E.R. 25 (T.B. App. 1446). See also P. C. O’Driscoll Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1964), 3 T.B.R. 189 (T.B. App. 748); Ascor of Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1965), 3 T.B.R. 273 (T.B. App. 798); Carl Zeiss Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1967), 4 T.B.R. 31 (T.B. App. 849); Tri-Hawk International Traders Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1977), C.Gaz. 1978.I.837 (T.B. App. 1213); G. B. Fermentation Industries Inc. v. DMNRCE (1981), 7 T.B.R. 303, 3 C.E.R. 87 (T.B. App. 1591); Squibb Canada Inc. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 488, 12 C.E.R. 255 (T.B. App. 2261).

¹⁴² According to the Board, the comforters were intended to provide warmth, were smaller than bedspreads, and were quilted in a different fashion: Imperial Feather Corp. (Toronto) v. DMNRCE (1982), 8 T.B.R. 80, 4 C.E.R. 43 (T.B. Apps. 1668, 1709).

¹⁴³ R.S.C. 1927, c. 42, s. 58 (repealed S.C. 1950, c. 13, s. 4). See Canada Packers Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1951), 1 T.B.R. 45 (T.B. App. 236).

¹⁴⁴ Frito-Lay Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1978), 6 T.B.R. 634 at 652 (T.B. Apps. 1241, 1264, 1272), aff’d (1980), [1981] 1 EC. 177, 2 C.E.R. 143 (F.C.A.).

¹⁴⁵ Hunt Foods Export Corp. of Canada v. DMNRCE, [1970] Ex. CR. 828, 4 T.B.R. 333 at 342–43 (Ex. Ct.), rev’g (1969), 4 T.B.R. 328 (T.B. Apps. 907, etc.). See also Board, Tariff, Reference 154 Google ScholarPubMed: Edible Oil Products, Sept. 30, 1978; Consumers Foodcrafl Corp. v. DMNRCE (1955), 1 T.B.R. 237 (T.B. App. 343); Les Entreprises Mair Fried Enrg. v. DMNRCE (1978), CGaz. 1979.1.3048 (T.B. App. 1220).

¹⁴⁶ Superior Separator Co. of Canada v. DMNRCE (1952), 1 T.B.R. 94 at 95 (T.B. App. 273).

¹⁴⁷ Franklin Serum Co. of Canada v. DMNRCE (1953), 1 T.B.R. 95 (T.B. Apps. 274, 275, 276). See also ETF Tools v. DMNRCE (1961), 2 T.B.R. 315 (T.B. App. 623).

¹⁴⁸ Cockshutt Plow Co. v. DMNRCE (1951), 1 T.B.R. 63 (T.B. App. 252). See also General Bearing Service Inc. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 150, 11 C.E.R. 122 (T.B. App. 2349).

¹⁴⁹ D.T. Gillespie v. DMNRCE (1969), 4 T.B.R. 389 (T.B. App. 914); Massot Nurseries Ltd. v. DMNRCE, supra note 107. For particular goods, other tariff items might also provide more specific descriptions: Zukiwski v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 581, 15 C.E.R. 217 (T.B. App. 2819); Ripley’s Farm v. DMNRCE (1988), 13 T.B.R. 280, 16 C.E.R. 153 (T.B. App. 2681).

¹⁵⁰ W. L. Ballentine Co. v. DMNRCE (1951), 1 T.B.R. 46 at 47 (T.B. App. 237).

¹⁵¹ R. v. Specialties Distributors Ltd., [1954] Ex. CR. 535.

¹⁵² R. W. Nelson Seed Farms v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 566, 15 C.E.R. 206 (T.B. App. 2693).

¹⁵³ Mercury Tool & Stamping Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1962), 2 T.B.R. 328 (T.B. App. 696).

¹⁵⁴ Dubeau v. DMNRCE (1959), 2 T.B.R. 198 (T.B. App. 506).

¹⁵⁵ Alta-Fresh Produce Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1968), 4 T.B.R. 145 (T.B. App. 873).

¹⁵⁶ WER Holdings Inc. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 306, 12 C.E.R. 37 (T.B. App. 2393). See further Tutt v. DMNRCE (1991), 4 T.C.T. 3098 (C.I.T.T. App. 2975). In Major Irrigation (1974) Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1982), 8 T.B.R. 446, 5 C.E.R. 93 (T.B. App. 1830), machinery for off-farm highway transport of agricultural produce was excluded; in that decision, the Board seems to have been reading in qualifications from another part of the same tariff item that listed certain goods eo nomine and required that they be “for use on the farm for farm purposes only.”

¹⁵⁷ The goods still had to qualify as machinery or as implements. In several appeals, the Board determined that agricultural implements were things like hoes and rakes used in active work. These were to be distinguished from apparatus and other equipment such as milking stalls, fencing, and specialized flooring, which did not qualify because they were only used passively. See Babson Bros. Co. (Canada) v. DMNRCE (1950), 1 T.B.R. 31 (T.B. App. 208); Delage v. DMNRCE (1964), 3 T.B.R. 197 (T.B. App. 757); F. Lawson and Sons Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1965), 3 T.B.R. 277 (T.B. App. 802); Sheep Producers Assoáation of Nova Scotia v. DMNRCE (1979), 6 T.B.R. 785, 1 C.E.R. 94 (T.B. App. 1379); Riverside Colony Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1985), 10 T.B.R. 258, 10 C.E.R. 129 (T.B. App. 232 7); J. P. Soubry Distribution Representation Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1986), 11 T.B.R. 448, 12 C.E.R. 181 (T.B. App. 2442); Beekeepers’ Supply Co. v. DMNRCE (1987), 12 T.B.R. 209, 14 C.E.R. 149 (T.B. App. 2533); Schmidt v. DMNRCE (1987), 12T.B.R. 218, 14 CE.R. 143 (T.B. App. 2601); Nova Aqua Sea Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1990), 3 T.C.T. 2233 (C.I.T.T. App. 3027).

¹⁵⁸ Ruth F. Sturm, Customs Law and Administration, 490–99 (2d ed., New York: American Importers Association, 1980).

¹⁵⁹ John Deere Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1990), 3 T.C.T. 5097 (F.C.A.), aff’g. (1988), 13 T.B.R. 33, 16 CE.R. 22 (T.B. Apps. 2247 etc.).

¹⁶⁰ Sealand of the Paafic Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1989), 2 T.C.T. 1149 (C.I.T.T. App. 3042). Even based on the physical characteristics of the vessel, it may have been possible to argue for a commercial context. The ship was 133 feet long. It had two lounges (one with a fireplace), full kitchen service, television and sound equipment, deck areas with barbecue and jacuzzi, and 17 staterooms with private washrooms.

¹⁶¹ In Cataphote Corp. of Canada v. DMNRCE (1962), 2 T.B.R. 259 (T.B. App. 572), the dissenting member of the Tariff Board declined to find that the imported goods were “broken glass or cullet” since they had been finely ground to a common size and were much more expensive than ordinary waste glass or cullet. While the majority acknowledged the price difference, they found that it was not enough to move the goods to the Department’s chosen tariff item, “manufactures of glass.” Concerning economic factors and end use items, see Alex L. Clark Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1967), 4 T.B.R. 53 (T.B. App. 860).

¹⁶² In Dentists’Supply Co. of New York v. DMNRCE (1960), 2 T.B.R. 87 (Ex. CL), the Exchequer Court mentioned that the difference in the appeal was between o per cent and 20 per cent (at 88). Rates were also mentioned by the Exchequer Court or Federal Court of Appeal in Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. DMNRCE, [1966] Ex. CR. 1112, 3 T.B.R. 216; Central Eledric Wire Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1967), 3 T.B.R. 296 (Ex. Ct.); DMNRCE v. GTE Sylvania Canada Ltd. (1985), 10 C.E.R. 200, 64 N.R. 322 (F.C.A.). In C.J. Rush Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1979)’ 6 T.B.R. 902, 1 C.E.R. 231 (T.B. App. 1422), the Tariff Board rejected the appellant’s argument, which was based on the tariff structure and on the idea that higher tariff rates indicated a greater degree of manufacturing.

¹⁶³ J. Freedman & Son Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1954), 1 T.B.R. 172 (T.B. App. 314),aff’d (sub nom Canadian Horticultural Coundl v. Freedman) (1954), 1 T.B.R. 174 (Ex. Ct.). For further rejections of attempted purposive arguments, see Quaker Oats Co. of Canada v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 276, 8 C.E.R. 1 (T.B. App. 2115); Benoit Belanger v. DMNRCE (1984), 9 T.B.R. 295, 7 C.E.R. 18 (T.B. App. 2102).

¹⁶⁴ Reference re … Internal Combustion Tractor[s] (1966), 3 T.B.R. 259 at 261 (T.B. App. 795).

¹⁶⁵ Pfizer Co. v. DMNRCE, [1973] F.C. 3, 5 T.B.R. 236 at 238 (F.C.A.), rev’d (1975). [1977] 1 S.C.R. 456, 5 T.B.R. 257.

¹⁶⁶ Simplìàty Patterns Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1980), 7 T.B.R. 214, 2 C.E.R. 315 (T.B. App. 1508 ), aff’d (1981), 3 C.E.R. 344 (F.C.A.). See also Sargent-Welch Scientific of Canada Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1988), 13 T.B.R. 118, 16 C.E.R. 73 (T.B. App. 2813); AKA Music Import Distnbution v. DMNRCE (1988), 13 T.B.R. 122, 16 C.E.R. 87 (T.B. App. 2883). Under the Harmonized System, see National Geographic Society v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 121 (QL) (AP-92-194). From the European Court of Justice, see Hamlin Electronics GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Darmstadt, Case C-338/90, [1992] Rec. I-2333.

¹⁶⁷ Supreme Plating Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1985), 10 T.B.R. 205, 9 C.E.R. 255 (T.B. App. 2220). Classification appeals should be distinguished from the Tribunal’s inquiry function: Canadian International Trade Tribunal Act, R.S.C. 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 47, ss. 18, 19. On appeals, the Tribunal is not asked to recommend changes to tariff items: Canadian Thermos Products Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 4 (QL) (AP-92-015); Gasparotto/Panontin Construction Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 75 (QL) (AP-91-152).

¹⁶⁸ Willis, John, “Statute Interpretation in a Nutshell,” 16 Can. Bar Rev. 1 (1938).Google Scholar

¹⁶⁹ For two recent reviews of the field, see Coombe, Rosemary J., “’Same As It Ever Was’: Rethinking the Politics of Legal Interpretation,” 34 McGill L.J. 603 (1989)Google Scholar; Eskridge, William N. Jr., “Gadamer/Statutory Interpretation,” 90 Colum. L.R. 609 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷⁰ Templeman, J. in Street v. Mountford, [1985] A.C. 809 at 819,Google Scholar cited in Harris, J.W., “Unger’s Critique of Formalism in Legal Reasoning: Hero, Hercules and Humdrum,” 52 Mod. L. Rev. 42 at 60 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar It may be noted that this example, in fact, involves an element of participatory interpretation, since it mentions use of the fork for digging. The example does not follow a pure observation model.

¹⁷¹ Esden Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1078 (C.I.T.T. AP-90-006); York Barbell Co. v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1150 (C.I.T.T. AP-91-131); Udisco Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1992] C.I.T.T. No. 121 (QL) (AP-91-269); Black & Decker Canada Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1992] C.I.T.T. No. 143 (QL) (AP-90-192); Canadian Thermos Productslnc. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 4 (QL) (AP-92-015); Bionaire lnc. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 83 (QL) (AP-92-110).

¹⁷² Pollard Banknote Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1990), 4 T.C.T. 3108 (C.I.T.T., AP-89-279).

¹⁷³ Royal Telecomlnc. v. DMNRCE (1991), 4 T.C.T. 3175 (C.I.T.T. AP-90-027); R. G. Dobbin Sales Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 25 (QL) (AP-92-032).

¹⁷⁴ See Dumex Medical Surgical Products Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1297 (C.I.T.T. AP-91-132); Diamant Boari Truco Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1315 (C.I.T.T., AP-90-166). In the law of the European Union, see Herbert Fleischer Import-Export v. Hauptzollamt Flensburg, Case 49/73, [1973] Rec. 1199; Directeur general des douanes et des droits indirects v. Powerex-Europe, Case C-66/89, [1990] E.C.R. I-1959.

¹⁷⁵ Concerning unassembled goods, see Bradley v. DMNRCE (1990), 3 T.C.T. 2188 (C.I.T.T. AP-89-228); Procedan Industries Inc. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 87 (QL) (AP-92-152). In the law of the European Union, see IMCO — J. Michaelis GmbH & Co. v. Oberfinanzdirektion Berlin, Case 165/78, [1979] E.C.R. 1837.

¹⁷⁶ See Kelley, Patrick L. and Onkelinx, Ivo, EEC Customs Law: Legislation, Case Law and Explanatory Text on the Customs System of the European Economic Community, T-66, T-67 (Oxford: ESC Publishing, 1986 (4th Supp., 1991)).Google Scholar

¹⁷⁷ In the European Union, see E.I. Du Pont de Nemours Inc. v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Case 234/81, [1982] E.C.R. 3515, in which imitation marble building material was classified as an article of plastic rather than an artificial stone, despite the fact that plastic was only 33 per cent of its composition. Rule 2(b) was used to expand the reference to material composition. Even if Rule 3(a) had been used, the Court would have found the description of articles that had the properties of building stone less specific than the description by material composition.

¹⁷⁸ For a literal interpretation of specificity, see Editions Panini du Canada Ltée v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 38 (QL) (AP-92-018); Praher Canada Products Ltd. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 99 (QL) (AP-92-112). The question should not be which tariff item covers the smallest class of goods, but rather which item is the most specific description of the imports in question.

¹⁷⁹ It should be noted that “goods put up in sets for retail sale” could have a fairly wide application, as the Explanatory Notes indicate. In previous case law of the European Union, the phrase has been held to apply to composite machinery if the components are not all included in the “functional unit” according to the Notes to Section 16. See Metro International Kommanditgesellschaft v. Ober-finanzdirektion München, Case 60/83, [1984] E.C.R. 671; Hauptzollamt Hannover v. Telefunken Fernseh und Rundfunk GmbH, Case 163/84, [1985] E.C.R. 3299.

¹⁸⁰ See Baupia GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion Köln, Case 28/75, [1975] E.C.R. 989.

¹⁸¹ Pigmalion Services v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1247 (C.I.T.T. AP-90-138); Sandvik Rock Tools v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1292 (C.I.T.T. AP-91-110, AP-91-138); Oriental Trading (MTL) Ltd. v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1363 (C.I.T.T. AP-91-081, AP-91-223); Weil Co. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 64 (QL) (AP-92-096). See Explanatory Note 7 to Rule 3(b), which states that “the role of a constituent material in relation to the use of goods” may be a factor in determining essential character.

¹⁸² Naamloze vennootschap Farr Co. v. Belgian State, Case 130/82, [1983] E.C.R. 327. A contrary example is Gustav Schickedanz KM v. Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt am Main, Case 298/82, [1984] E.C.R. 1829, in which the leather supports on running shoes were less “essential” than the textile fabric despite their more important function.

¹⁸³ Kaffee-Contor Bremen GmbH & Co. KGv. Hauptzollamt Bremen-Nord, Case 192/82, [1983] E.C.R. 176g. See also Sportex GmbH ûf Co. v. Oberfinanzdirektion Hamburg, Case 253/87, [1988] E.C.R. 3351.

¹⁸⁴ ELBA Elektroapparate- und Maschinenbau Walter Goettmann KG v. Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof, Case 205/80, [1981] E.C.R. 2097.

¹⁸⁵ LEC-Holden Inc. v. DMNRCE (1992), 5 T.C.T. 1187 (C.I.T.T. AP-91-150); John Martens Co. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 69 (QL) (AP-92-022).

¹⁸⁶ Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Oberelbe v. Firma Paul G. Bollmann, Case 40/69, [1970] Rec. 69 (“Turkey Tails”). The function of the goods was significant in Telefunken Fernseh und Rundfunk GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion München, Case 223/84, [1985] E.C.R. 3335.

¹⁸⁷ Industriemetall LUMA GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Dulsberg, Case 38/76, [1976] E.C.R. 2027.

¹⁸⁸ Canadian Rule 2 confirms that international terms take precedence in those instances where the tariff contains the Canadian term in parenthesis after the international term. This Canadianization of the tariff occurred after recommendations from the Tariff Board concerning the difficulty of understanding an HS-based tariff that referred to things like “crane lorries” (mobile cranes) and “gear boxes” (transmissions). See Tariff Board, Reference No. 163, Canada’s Customs Tariff According to the Harmonized System, Vol. 1, Chapters 1–24 (1985) at 15 and Vol. 2, Part 1, Chapters 25–46 (1985) at 15; Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise, Submission to the Tariff Board, Reference No. 163: Canada’s Customs Tariff According to the Harmonized System, July 29, 1986, at 7.

¹⁸⁹ See Günther Henck v. Hauptzollamt Emden, Case 36/71, [1972] Rec. 187; Past & Co. KGv. Hauptzollamt Freiburg, Case 128/73, [1973] E.C.R. 1277; Hauptzollamt Bielefeld v. Offene Handehgesellschaft in Firma H.C. König, Case 185/73, [1974] E.C.R. 607; Belgian State v. Vandertaelen, Case 53/75, [1975] E.C.R. 1647; Carstens Keramik & Firma August Hoff v. Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt am Main, Cases 98 & 99/75. [1976] E.C.R. 241; Industriemetall LUMA GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Dulsberg, Case 38/76, [1976] E.C.R. 2027; Carlsen Verlag GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion Köln, Case 62/77, [1977] E.C.R. 2343; Westfälischer Kunstverein v. Hauptzollamt Münster, Case 23/77, [1977] E.C.R. 1985; Firma Hako-Schuh Dietrich Bahner v. Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main-Ost, Case 54/79, [1980] E.C.R. 311; Hauptzo Uamt Hamburg-Jonas v. Ludwig Wünsche & Co., Case 145/81, [1982] E.C.R. 2493; Almadent Dental-Handels-und Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH v. Hauptzollamt Mainz, Case 237/81, [1982] E.C.R. 2981; Hans Dinter GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Köln-Deutz, Case 175/82, [1983] E.C.R. 969; Thomasdünger GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt am Main, Case 166/84, [1985] E.C.R. 3001; Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects v. Artimport, Case 42/86, [1987] E.C.R. 4817; Weber v. Mïlchwerke Paderborn-Rimbeck e.G., Case 40/88, [1989] E.C.R. 1395; Ministère public v. Rispai, Case 164/88, [1989] E.C.R. 2041; Raab v. Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof, Case C-1/89, [1989] E.C.R. 4423; Farfalla Flemming und Partner v. Hauptzollamt München-West, Case C-228/89, [1990] E.C.R. I-3387; Gebr. Vismans Nederland BV v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Acrijnzen, Case C-265/89, [1990] E.C.R. I-3411; Ministère public v. Tomatis, Case C-384/89, [1991] E.C.R. I-127; Ludwig Post GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion München, Case C-120/90, [1991] E.C.R. I-2391. Treatment that “cannot be seen with the naked eye” meant just that in Howe & Bainbridge BV v. Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt am Main, Case 317/81, [1982] E.C.R. 3257. See further NV Koninklijke Lassiefabrieken v. Hoofproduktschap voor Akker-bouwprodukten, Case 80/72, [1973] Rec. 635. Verifiability by taste was also acceptable: Gijs van de Kolk-Douane Expéditeur BV v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Case C-233/88, [1990] E.C.R. I-265.

¹⁹⁰ Hauptzollamt Osnabrück v. Kleiderwerke Hela Lampe GmbH & Co. KG, Case 222/85, [1986] E.C.R. 2449 at 2456.

¹⁹¹ 3M Deutschland GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt am Main, Case 92/83, [1984] E.C.R. 1587. For other cases that similarly reject use as a criterion, see Dr. Ritter GmbH & Co. v. Oberfinanzdirektion Hamburg, Case 114/80, [1981] E.C.R. 895; Handehondememing J.Mikx BV v. Minister van Economiscke Zaken, Case 90/85, [1986] E.C.R. 1695; Weser Gold GmbH & Co. KG v. Oberfinanzdirektion München, Case C-219/89, [1991] E.C.R. I-1895; Parma Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Hauptzo Uamt Bad Reichenhall, Case C-246/90, [1992] Rec. I-3467.

¹⁹² Casio Computer Co. GmbH Deutschland v. Oberfinanzdirektion München, Case 234/87, [1989] E.C.R. 63. See also: Analog Devices GmbH v. Hauptzo Uamt München-Mitte, Case 122/80, [1981] E.C.R. 2781; Gerlach & Co. BV v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Case C-43/89, [1990] E.C.R. 1–3219.

¹⁹³ Otto Witt KG v. Hauptzo Uamt Hamburg-Ericus, Case 149/73, [1973] Rec. 1587. See Lasok, D. and Cairns, W., The Customs Law of the European Economic Community 64 (Deventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 1983).Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ A participatory approach was used to determine similarity in Nederlandsch Bemachtingskantoor BV v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Amsterdam, Case 37/82, [1982] E.C.R. 3481. On machines for measuring or checking, see International Container et Transport (ICT) v. Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects de Roissy, Case 19/88, [1989] E.C.R. 577; Shimadzu Europa GmbH v. Oberfinanzdirektion Berlin, Case C-218/89, [1990] E.C.R. I-4391. In Canadian case law, see Outils Royal Tools Corp. v. DMNRCE, [1993] C.I.T.T. No. 108 (QL) (AP-92-151).

¹⁹⁵ General Secretariat, Customs Co-operation Council, Development of a Commodity Description and Coding System for Use in International Trade, Doc. 17.210, Dec. 4, 1970, paras. 21–23.

¹⁹⁶ The suggested codes were: (1) Customs nomenclatures (Brussels Tariff Nomenclature, Tariff Nomenclature for the Latin American Free Trade Association (NABALALC), Customs tariff of Canada, Customs tariff of the United States, Customs tariff of Japan); (2) Statistical nomenclatures (Standard International Trade Classification (SITC, Rev.2), Nomenclature of Goods for the External Trade Statistics of the Community and Statistics of Trade between Member States (NIMEXE), Import Commodity Classification (Canada), Export Commodity Classification (Canada), Schedule Β (Export, United States)); (3) Transport nomenclatures (Standard Commodity Nomenclature (NUM) of the International Union of Railways (UIC), Worldwide Air Cargo Commodity Classification (WACCC), Freight Tariff of the Association of West India Trans-Atlantic Steamship Lines (WIFT), Standard Transportation Commodity Code (STCC)); (4) Other classifications (Standard Foreign Trade Classification (SFTC) of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance). See Harmonized System Study Group, Report to the Customs Co-operation Counril of the Study Group for the Development of a Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System for International Trade, Doc. 19.513, Mar. 28, 1973 (hereinafter “HS Study Group, Report”), Annex C.

¹⁹⁷ HS Study Group, Report, paras. 23, 42, 45.

¹⁹⁸ See J. H. Hoguet, Director of CCC Nomenclature, “The Case for an International Goods Nomenclature,” mimeograph, April 1976, at 17: “An instrument which began as a Customs nomenclature (1955), grew into a Customs and statistical Nomenclature (1960–1980), and will eventually evolve into a ’Harmonized System’ (1980 onwards) represents a progressive response to the development of various needs which, though not entirely new, are becoming ever more important in such areas as taxation, market research, investment, planning, etc.”

¹⁹⁹ HS Study Group, Report, para. 20.

²⁰⁰ Summary Record, 30th Session of the Harmonized System Committee and Working Party, Feb. 7–15, 1983, Doc. 29.850, Mar. 10, 1983; Summary Record, 27th Session of the Harmonized System Committee and Working Party, Feb. 8–26, 1982, Doc. 28.400, Apr. 8, 1982; Summary Record, 26th Session of the Harmonized System Committee and Working Party, Oct. 5–23, 1981, Doc. 28.000, Nov. 25, 1981; Summary Record, 21st Session of the Harmonized System Committee and Working Party, May 19-June 6, 1980, Doc. 26.320, July 18, 1980. See United States International Trade Commission, Interim Report on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, Publication No. 1106, November 1980, at 11–12.

²⁰¹ HS Study Group, Report, para. 22.

²⁰² Ibid., Annex D, para. 9.

²⁰³ United States International Trade Commission, Concepts and Prìnàpks Which Should Underlie the Formulation of an International Commodity Code, 94th Congress, ist Session, House Document No. 94–175, June 1975 at 8.

²⁰⁴ See Lakoff, George, Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind, 264, 301 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987):CrossRefGoogle Scholar “Acknowledging alternative conceptual schemes does not abandon objectivity; on the contrary, it makes objectivity possible.”

²⁰⁵ The Customs Co-operation Council is active in encouraging this development: see its Annual Report 1989–90, Bulletin No. 35 at 19. See also Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise, Customs 2000: A Blueprint for the Future, undated (1989–90); Revenue Canada, Customs and Excise, Customs Commercial System: General Information on the Customs Commeràal System, 1986.

²⁰⁶ HS Study Group, Report, paras. 13–15.

²⁰⁷ Customs Co-operation Council, Annual Report 1985–86, Bulletin No. 31 at 13–14; Customs Co-operation Council, Annual Report 1986–87, Bulletin No. 3a at 12; Customs Co-operation Council, Annual Report 1987–88, Bulletin No. 33 at 11–12; Customs Co-operation Council, Annual Report 1988–89, Bulletin No. 34 at 13–14; Customs Co-operation Council, Annual Report 1989–90, Bulletin No. 35 at 14–15; Musa, A., “Technical Assistance for Developing Countries Implementing the Harmonized System,” in Customs Co-operation Council, Implementing the Harmonized System: A Management Perspective 9 (1986).Google Scholar