Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Partylite Gifts Ltd. v. Canada (Customs & Revenue Agency)

Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date 2005-05-03
Neutral citation 2005 FCA 157
File numbers A-252-04

Decision Content

Date: 20050503

Docket: A-252-04

Citation: 2005 FCA 157

CORAM:        ROTHSTEIN J.A.

NOËL J.A.

MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                        PARTYLITE GIFTS LTD.

                                                                                                                                            Appellant

                                                                           and

       THE COMMISSIONER OF THE CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

                                             Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 3, 2005.

                       Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 3, 2005.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                                        NOËL J.A

Date: 20050503

Docket: A-252-04

Citation: 2005 FCA 157

CORAM:        ROTHSTEIN J.A.

NOËL J.A.

MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                        PARTYLITE GIFTS LTD.

                                                                                                                                            Appellant

                                                                           and

       THE COMMISSIONER OF THE CANADA CUSTOMS AND REVENUE AGENCY

                                                                                                                                        Respondent

                                     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

                         (Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 3, 2005)

NOËL J.A.

[1]                This appeal, pursuant to section 68 of the Customs Act, is from a decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) confirming the Commissioner of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency's tariff classification of the appellant's goods.

[2]                The appellant agues in essence that, having found that the goods in issue had multiple uses, it was not open to the CITT to hold that they were "non-electrical lamps and lighting fittings - candlesticks and candelabras - " under tariff item No. 9405.50.10.

[3]                In our respectful view, the fact that the goods in issue could be put to more than one use did not preclude the finding made by the CITT that they were designed to hold candles. This finding, which was open to the CITT based on the evidence before it, was sufficient to bring the subject goods within subheading No. 9405.50 and tariff item No. 9405.50.10.

[4]                The appeal will be dismissed with costs.

              "Marc Noël"                          

J.A.

                                                  FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

                            NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                                               A-252-04

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                               Partylite Gifts Ltd. v. Commissioner of the Canada Customs & Revenue Agency

                                                                             

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                         Ottawa, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:                                                           May 3, 2005

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:              Rothstein, Noël, Malone, JJA

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:                             Noël J.A.

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Michael Kaylor

FOR THE APPELLANT

Mr. Richard Casanova

FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

LAPOINTE ROSENSTEIN

Montreal (Quebec)

FOR THE APPELLANT

Mr. John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 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.