A-293-78
Frito-Lay Canada Limited, Colfax International
Inc. and Hostess Food Products Limited (Appel-
lants)
v.
Deputy Minister of National Revenue for Customs
and Excise (Respondent)
Court of Appeal, Thurlow C.J., Heald and Urie
JJ.—Ottawa, June 11, 1980.
Customs and excise — Appeal from Tariff Board's conclu
sion that imported commodities are mixtures of vegetable oils
and are properly classified — No error of law in Board's
conclusion — Goods not hydrogenated oils — Board's inter
pretation of "lard compound" correct — Appeal dismissed —
Customs Tariff R.S.C. 1970, c. C-41, Schedule A — Customs
Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-40, s. 48 as amended by R.S.C. 1970
(2nd Supp.), c. 10, s. 65.
APPEAL.
COUNSEL:
Y. A. George Hynna for appellants.
Peter B. Annis and Deen Olsen for respond
ent.
SOLICITORS:
Gowling & Henderson, Ottawa, for appel
lants.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for
respondent.
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. Annis and Miss Olsen.
We have not been persuaded that the Tariff
Board's conclusion that the imported commodities
were mixtures of vegetable oils, n.o.p. and were
properly classified under tariff item 27740-1 of the
Customs Tariff, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-41, was based
on any error of law. We do not think that the
goods in question properly fall within tariff item
27825-1 as hydrogenated oils and while the
Board's interpretation of what is embraced by the
expression "lard compound" in tariff item 1305-1
as "a mixture of edible fats containing lard" may
be broader than is warranted by the wording, the
interpretation of the tariff item errs, if at all, only
in being too favourable to the appellants' position.
Further, we have not been referred to anything
in the Cuillard briefing books for Reference 154—
Vegetable Oils--which states any relevant or con
tentious fact that might bear on the issue of how
the goods in question should be classified, or which
the appellants ought to have been afforded an
opportunity to refute. The appellants' submission
that there was a failure of natural justice is there
fore not made out.
The appeal accordingly fails and is 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.