Hydrogen peroxide, whether or not solidified with urea.

[36].   In this connection, it was not necessary for the Tribunal, inPhilips Electronics, to delve too deeply into the broader definition of the terms “hygiene” and “hygienic”, as the goods in that case (i.e. teats for baby bottles) were expressly included among the “hygienic and toilet articles” listed in theExplanatory Notes.

Source: citt_decision (AP-2013-026)

[13].   Rule 1 of theCanadian Rulesprovides that “. . . the classification of goods in the tariff items of a subheading or of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those tariff items and any related Supplementary Notes and,mutatis mutandis, to the [General Rules] . . .” and that “. . . the relative Section, Chapter and Subheading Notes also apply, unless the context otherwise...

Source: citt_decision (AP-2013-026)

[7]and theExplanatory Notes to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System,

Source: citt_decision (AP-2013-026)

[8]published by the WCO. While theClassification Opinionsand theExplanatory Notesare not binding, the Tribunal will apply them unless there is a sound reason to do otherwise.

Source: citt_decision (AP-2013-026)

[9]The Tribunal must therefore first determine whether the good in issue is classifiable at the heading level according to Rule 1 of theGeneral Rulesbased on the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes in theCustoms Tariff, having regard to any relevant classification opinions and explanatory notes. If the good in issue is not classifiable at the heading level through...

Source: citt_decision (AP-2013-026)

[69]The CBSA also submits that the good in issue, being of the same character as goods explicitly identified as covered goods in the explanatory notes to heading No. 33.06, must be taken to fall within that tariff heading. In this regard, the explanatory notes to heading No. 33.06 provide as follows:

Source: citt_decision (AP-2013-026)

In the Tribunal’s view, however, the good in issue is not of the same character as the goods listed in theExplanatory Notesin that, unlike those goods (which are either patently conducive to oral and dental health or, at worst, essentially benign), the hydrogen peroxide gel preparation in the good in issue carries a risk of harm to both dental and oral health.The reference to “other...

Source: citt_decision (AP-2013-026)

[8].     World Customs Organization, 5th ed., Brussels, 2012 [Explanatory Notes].

Source: citt_decision (AP-2013-026)

[9].     Refer toCanada (Attorney General) v. Suzuki Canada Inc., 2004 FCA 131 (CanLII) at paras. 13, 17, where the Federal Court of Appeal interpreted section 11 of theCustoms Tariffas requiring that theExplanatory Notesbe respected unless there is a sound reason to do otherwise. The Tribunal is of the view that this direction is equally applicable to theClassification Opinions.

Source: citt_decision (AP-2013-026)