IN THE MATTER OF an appeal heard on September 13, 2016, pursuant to section 67 of the Customs Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.);
AND IN THE MATTER OF a decision of the President of the Canada Border Services Agency, dated December 14, 2015, with respect to a request for re-determination pursuant to subsection 60(4) of the Customs Act.
The appeal is dismissed.
. R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.) [Act].
. Canada is a signatory to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, which governs the Harmonized System.
. S.C. 1997, c. 36, schedule [General Rules].
. 2016 SCC 38 (CanLII) [Igloo Vikski] at para. 21.
. World Customs Organization, 2nd ed., Brussels, 2003 [Classification Opinions].
. World Customs Organization, 5th ed., Brussels, 2012 [Explanatory Notes].
. See Canada (Attorney General) v. Suzuki Canada Inc., 2004 FCA 131 (CanLII) at paras. 13, 17, where the Federal Court of Appeal interpreted section 11 of the Customs Tariff as requiring that the Explanatory Notes be respected unless there is a sound reason to do otherwise. The Tribunal is of the view that this interpretation is equally applicable to the Classification Opinions.
. Proctor-Silex Canada v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency (8 April 2013), AP-2011-065 (CITT) at para. 34; Cross Country Parts Distribution Ltd. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency (19 August 2016), AP-2012-052R (CITT) at para. 22.
. J. Cheese Inc. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency (13 September 2016), AP-2015-011 (CITT) at para. 63; Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency (23 May 2014), AP‑2011-033 (CITT) at para. 25; Canada (Border Services Agency) v. Miner, 2012 FCA 81 (CanLII).
. Costco Wholesale Canada Ltd. v. President of the Canada Border Services Agency (29 July 2013), AP-2012-041 and AP-2012-042 (CITT) at para 46; Cross Country Parts Distribution Ltd. v. Canada (Border Services Agency), 2015 FCA 187 (CanLII).
. Exhibit AP-2015-033-06A, tab 1 at para. 16, Vol. 1A.
. Transcript of Public Hearing, 13 September 2016, at 20.
. Build.Com seemed to argue in its brief that the case at hand is analogous to the Tribunal’s decision in Appeal No. AP-90-174 where certain stainless steel toilets were classified as “other electric machines and apparatus, having individual functions, not specified or included elsewhere in Chapter 85.” However, in that decision, the goods in issue had none of the characteristics of the goods falling under heading 69.10 (they were not made of ceramic and were not fixtures) and neither party argued that they were ceramic sanitary fixtures. This case is therefore not helpful in determining classification of the goods in issue.
. Exhibit AP-2015-033-06A, tab 22, Vol. 1A.
. Exhibit AP-2015-033-04A at para. 10, Vol. 1.
. Exhibit AP-2015-033-06A, tab 17, Vol. 1A.
. Exhibit AP-2015-033-04A at para. 21, Vol. 1.
. Transcript of Public Hearing, 13 September 2016, at 69. At the hearing, Build.Com argued that a distinction must be made between these mechanisms and the electrical component on the basis that the latter is more expensive. However, nothing in the Customs Tariff suggests that a distinction between different types of “mechanisms” must be made based on their costs.
. (17 December 1999), AP-98-078 (CITT) at footnote 6.
. Igloo Vikski at para. 22.
. Exhibit AP-2015-033-11A, tab 1, Vol. 1B.