Neles Controls Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise), 2002 FCA 107

• Judge: Décary, Sharlow and Malone, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: March 22, 2002
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2002 FCA 107;(2002), 288 N.R. 260 (FCA)

Neles Controls Ltd. v. MNR (2002), 288 N.R. 260 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] N.R. TBEd. AP.011

Neles Controls Ltd. (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(A-116-01; 2002 FCA 107)

Indexed As: Neles Controls Ltd. v. Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise)

Federal Court of Appeal

Décary, Sharlow and Malone, JJ.A.

March 22, 2002.

Summary:

Neles Controls sought a declaration that it was entitled to a refund of approximately $400,000 respecting custom duties it paid for certain valves imported between February 1988 and October 1990. Neles claimed that the Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) had been unjustly enriched. At issue were the following questions: (1) whether Neles' claim was barred, in whole or in part, by the existence of alternative rem­edies; (2) whether the claim was barred by laches; (3) whether recovery for unjust enrichment was affected by the retroactive effect of the relevant provisions of the Ma­chinery Program; and (4) whether to estab­lish a detriment it was sufficient for Neles to show that its prices for the subject goods were established in a competitive environ­ment against goods that were subject to lesser rates of duty than those that pertained to the subject goods.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a judgment reported 200 F.T.R. 167, held, inter alia, (1) that the claim was barred by the failure to pursue available remedies under the Customs Tariff and (2) that to establish a detriment it was not sufficient for Neles to show that its prices were estab­lished in a competitive environment against goods that were subject to lesser rates of duty than those that pertained to the subject goods. Neles appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 4562

Judicial review - Declaratory action - Bars - Existence of alternate remedy - [See Customs - Topic 6261 ].

Customs - Topic 5220

Classification for duty - Particular goods - Valves - [See Customs - Topic 6261 ].

Customs - Topic 6261

Payment of duty - Refund of duty paid - General - Neles Controls sought a declar­ation that it was entitled to a substantial refund for custom duties paid for certain valves it imported from February 1988 to October 1990 which were reclassified - The reclassification, which lowered the customs duties, was retroactive to January 1988 - Neles received a partial refund, but sought further reclassification entitling it to further customs relief - The Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) denied the claim - Years later, Neles sought a declaration that the Minister was unjustly enriched by the alleged excessive customs duties' payments - The Minister submitted that the claim was barred by Neles' failure to exhaust its remedies under the Customs Tariff prior to commencing its application - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was correct to conclude that Neles' claim was barred by its failure to pursue available remedies under the Customs Tariff - Recourse to com­mon law or equitable relief was precluded by the comprehensive statutory scheme for relief - See paragraphs 14 to 16.

Restitution - Topic 62

Unjust enrichment - General - What constitutes - Neles Controls sought a declaration that it was entitled to a sub­stantial refund for custom duties paid for certain valves it imported from February 1988 to October 1990 which were reclass­ified - The basis for the claim was that the Minister was unjustly enriched by the alleged excessive customs duties paid by Neles - The Federal Court of Appeal af­firmed that it was not sufficient for Neles to establish that it suffered a detri­ment by showing that its prices for the valves were established in a competitive environment against goods that were sub­ject to lesser rates of duty - See para­graphs 17 to 22.

Restitution - Topic 102

Unjust enrichment - Bars - Statutory code - [See Customs - Topic 6261 ].

Cases Noticed:

Glaxco Wellcome plc v. Minister of Na­tional Revenue, [1998] 4 F.C. 439; 228 N.R. 164 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Zaidan Group Ltd. v. London (City) (1990), 36 O.A.C. 384; 71 O.R.(3d) 65 (C.A.), affd. [1991] 3 S.C.R. 593; 129 N.R. 227; 50 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 15].

Allied Air Conditioning Ltd. et al. v. Brit­ish Columbia et al. (No. 2) (1994), 40 B.C.A.C. 161; 65 W.A.C. 161; 109 D.L.R.(4th) 463 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Cherubini Metal Works Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) (1995), 137 N.S.R.(2d) 197; 391 A.P.R. 197; 35 C.P.C.(3d) 302 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Air Canada and Pacific Western Airlines Ltd. v. British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1161; 95 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 18].

Counsel:

Brian J. Barr, for the appellant;

Anne Turley, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Maclaren Corlett, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 20, 2002, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Décary, Sharlow and Malone, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal.

On March 22, 2002, Malone, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.