Panasonic Canada Inc. v. Canada (Border Services Agency)
The Federal Court of Appeal held that there was ample and cogent evidence supporting the CITT's conclusion that the composite machine's principal function was recording of images, and that the Tribunal's factual finding was reasonable and therefore entitled to deference, warranting dismissal of the appeal.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2009 FCA 32
- Parties
- Appellant: Panasonic Canada Inc.; Respondent: President of the Canada Border Services Agency
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 5 February 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal From Canadian International Trade Tribunal Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Tariff Classification, Principal Function Test, Standard of Review Reasonableness
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Panasonic Canada Inc.
Appellant
President of the Canada Border Services Agency
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Hearing and Judgment on Appeal From Canadian International Trade Tribunal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the principal function of the composite digital disk recorders is the recording of images for tariff classification purposes
- 2 Whether the Canadian International Trade Tribunal's conclusion was reasonable and entitled to appellate deference
Ratio Decidendi
The Federal Court of Appeal held that there was ample and cogent evidence supporting the CITT's conclusion that the composite machine's principal function was recording of images, and that the Tribunal's factual finding was reasonable and therefore entitled to deference, warranting dismissal of the appeal.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal dismissed with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Panasonic Canada Inc. v. Canada (Border Services Agency) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2009-02-05 Neutral citation 2009 FCA 32 File numbers A-571-07 Decision Content Date: 20090205 Docket: A-571-07 Citation: 2009 FCA 32 CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. BLAIS J.A. TRUDEL J.A. BETWEEN: PANASONIC CANADA INC. Appellant and PRESIDENT OF THE CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY Respondent Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on February 5, 2009. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on February 5, 2009. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: BLAIS J.A. Date: 20090205 Docket: A-571-07 Citation: 2009 FCA 32 CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. BLAIS J.A. TRUDEL J.A. BETWEEN: PANASONIC CANADA INC. Appellant and PRESIDENT OF THE CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Montréal, Quebec, on February 5, 2009). BLAIS J.A. [1] This is an appeal of a decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT) dated October 19, 2007. [2] This litigation concerns the classification for tariff purposes of four models of Panasonic digital disk recorders that are a combination of two machines: a) a video multiplexer and b) a hard disk recorder. [3] In our view, there was ample and cogent evidence upon which the CITT could reasonably conclude that the principal function of the composite machine was the recording of images, a function which the video multiplexer had the capacity of enhancing. [4] It was therefore opened to the Tribunal to arrive at its conclusion. Consequently, the appeal will be dismissed with costs. “Pierre Blais” J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-571-07 Appeal from a decision of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, October 19, 2007. STYLE OF CAUSE: PANASONIC CANADA INC. v. PRESIDENT OF THE CANADA BORDER SERVICES AGENCY PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec DATE OF HEARING: February 5, 2009 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: (LÉTOURNEAU, BLAIS, TRUDEL, JJ.A.) DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: BLAIS J.A. DATED: February 5, 2009 APPEARANCES: Michael Kaylor FOR THE APPELLANT Derek Rasmussen Andrew Gibbs FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Lapointe Rosenstein LLP Montréal, Quebec FOR THE APPELLANT John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT