Archived Content

Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page.

I.D. FOODS CORPORATION

Decisions


I.D. FOODS CORPORATION
v.
THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
Appeal Nos. AP-90-175 and AP-90-177

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ottawa, Wednesday, April 7, 1993

Appeal Nos. AP-90-175 and AP-90-177

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal heard on February 3, 1993, under section 81.19 of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15;

AND IN THE MATTER OF decisions of the Minister of National Revenue dated October 29, 1990, with respect to notices of objection served under section 81.17 of the Excise Tax Act.

BETWEEN

I.D. FOODS CORPORATION Appellant

AND

THE MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE Respondent

The appeals are allowed.


W. Roy Hines ______ W. Roy Hines Presiding Member

Michèle Blouin ______ Michèle Blouin Member

Lise Bergeron ______ Lise Bergeron Member

Michel P. Granger ______ Michel P. Granger Secretary





These are two appeals under section 81.19 of the Excise Tax Act from determinations of the Minister of National Revenue dated November 13, 1987, and December 8, 1989. The issue in these appeals is whether "Zumnsa" brand sangria non-alcoholic wine is exempt under section 1 of Part V of Schedule III to the Excise Tax Act from the imposition of federal sales tax under paragraph 50(1.1)(a) of the Excise Tax Act.

HELD: The appeals are allowed.

Place of Hearing: Ottawa, Ontario Date of Hearing: February 3, 1993 Date of Decision: April 7, 1993
Tribunal Members: W. Roy Hines, Presiding Member Michèle Blouin, Member Lise Bergeron, Member
Counsel for the Tribunal: Shelley Rowe
Clerk of the Tribunal: Janet Rumball





These are two appeals under section 81.19 of the Excise Tax Act [1] (the Act) from determinations of the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister). The issue in these appeals is whether "Zumnsa" brand sangria non-alcoholic wine is exempt under section 1 of Part V of Schedule III to the Act from the imposition of federal sales tax (FST) under paragraph 50(1.1)(a) of the Act.

The appellant imported "Zumnsa" brand sangria non-alcoholic wine produced by Zumos de Navarra S.A., Tafalla (Navarra), Spain, and thereafter, in September 1987, applied for a refund in the amount of $6,210.12 representing FST incorrectly imposed under paragraph 50(1.1)(a) of the Act on goods exempt under section 1 of Part V of Schedule III to the Act. The appellant filed a subsequent refund claim in October 1989 in the amount of $2,470.48 based on the reasons in the first application for refund. By notices of determination dated November 13, 1987, and December 8, 1989, the respective applications for refund were disallowed. The appellant objected to these notices on January 28, 1988, and March 7, 1990. In notices of decision both dated October 29, 1990, the Minister disallowed the objections and confirmed the determinations.

The Tribunal notes that the parties filed an agreed statement of facts on January 20, 1993, and asked the Tribunal to proceed on the basis of written documentation before it in accordance with rule 25 of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal Rules. [2] A review of the agreed statement of facts reveals that the respondent acknowledges that de-alcoholized wine is exempt under section 1 of Part V of Schedule III to the Act from the imposition of FST under paragraph 50(1.1)(a) of the Act as established with respect to a similar product in the Tribunal's decision in I-D Foods Corporation v. The Minister of National Revenue. [3] Further, the respondent adopts the findings in an independent laboratory report that the "Zumnsa" brand sangria non-alcoholic wine is not carbonated. For the above reasons, the respondent agrees that the "Zumnsa" brand sangria non-alcoholic wine is exempt under section 1 of Part V of Schedule III to the Act from the imposition of FST under paragraph 50(1.1)(a) of the Act.

After having considered the agreed statement of facts, the Tribunal agrees with the view taken by both the appellant and the respondent, and allows the appeals.


[Table of Contents]

1. R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15.

2. SOR/91-499, August 14, 1991, Canada Gazette Part II, Vol. 125, No. 18 at 2912.

3. Appeal Nos. AP-90-176 and AP-90-178, March 10, 1992.


Initial publication: July 9, 1997

Case Number(s)

AP-90-175, AP-90-177

Attachment(s)

Status

Publication Date

Tuesday, January 1, 1980

Modification Date

Wednesday, February 4, 2004