IN THE MATTER OF an appeal heard on October 26, 2017, 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 February 14, 2017, with respect to a request for review of an advance ruling on tariff classification pursuant to subsection 60(4) of the Customs Act.
The appeal is dismissed.
. R.S.C., 1985, c. 1 (2nd Supp.) [Act].
. The parties agree that the goods in issue are properly classified in tariff item No. 8708.40.29 as “gear boxes and parts thereof”.
. (18 January 2013), AP-2012-004 (CITT) [Holland Hitch]. The Tribunal’s decision was affirmed on appeal by the Federal Court of Appeal in Canada (Border Services Agency) v. Saf-Holland Canada Ltd., 2014 FCA 3 (CanLII).
. Exhibit AP-2017-008.04A at para. 27, Vol. 1.
. The legal framework for tariff classification is set out in Annex A.
. (30 November 2011), AP-2010-037 (CITT) [Great West Van] at para. 70, relying on the principles set out in The Queen v. York Marble, Tile and Terrazo Ltd,  SCR 140 and Enseignes Imperial Signs Ltée v. M.N.R.,  F.C.J. No. 171,  1 C.T.C. 229.
. Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re),  1 SCR 27, 1998 CanLII 837 at para. 21.
. R. Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 6th ed. at 30.
. Canadian Pacific Air Lines Ltd. v. Canadian Air Line Pilots Association,  3 SCR 724, 1993 CanLII 31 (SCC) at p. 735 (Gonthier J.); see also Pharmascience Inc. v. Binet,  2 SCR 513, 2006 SCC 48 (CanLII) at para. 30.
. The French version reads as follows: “Parties, accessoires et articles, à l’exclusion des pneumatiques et chambres à air, devant servir à la fabrication de parties d’équipement d’origine de véhicules de tourisme, de camions ou d’autobus, ou devant servir d’équipement d’origine dans la fabrication de ces véhicules ou de leurs châssis” [emphasis added].
. In Great West Van, which dealt with the second part of the tariff item, the Tribunal stated that tariff item No. 9958.00.00 requires the imported goods to be (1) parts, accessories or articles (2) for use as original equipment in (3) the manufacture of passenger automobiles. Similarly, in Holland Hitch, which dealt with the first part of tariff item No. 9958.00.00, it was understood that use in “manufacture” was a necessary condition for classification in the tariff item. All parties accepted that the goods in issue were semi-finished articles imported for further processing into finished automotive parts.
. Exhibit AP-2017-008-14A at paras. 17, 25-26, Vol. 1A. Transcript of Public Hearing, 26 October 2017, at 40-41.
. Holland Hitch at para. 54.
. Honda argued at the hearing that the words “in the manufacture of . . . vehicles . . .” were used by Parliament in conjunction with “original equipment” to indicate that only first fit and warranty replacement were covered, arguing that “other than that, there’s virtually no way to get . . . warranty replacement covered by the provision and not replacement from a broader sense . . .”; Transcript of Public Hearing, 26 October 2017, at 37-38. Yet, the trade meaning of “original equipment” as found in Holland Hitch at paras. 74-75 and relied on by Honda is inherently limited to replacements under warranty. As such, Honda has provided no convincing rationale for the presence of the words “in the manufacture of . . . vehicles . . .” in the second part of the tariff item if its interpretation were to be adopted.
. Customs Duties Reduction or Removal Order, 1988, amendment, SOR/94-18. See Exhibit AP-2017-008-15A, tab 4, Vol. 1B. This order introduced Code 6227, the predecessor of tariff item No. 9958.00.00, which was in all aspects relevant to this appeal worded in identical fashion.
. Exhibit AP-2017-008-15A, tab 4, Vol. 1B.
. 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].
. S.C. 1997, c. 36, schedule.
. World Customs Organization, 4th ed., Brussels, 2017.
. World Customs Organization, 6th ed., Brussels, 2017.
. 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.